This summer has been marked by extreme heat, with temperatures in Yangsan, South Gyeongsang Province, reaching 42.5 degrees Celsius, and the metropolitan area also hitting 40 degrees. Experts suggest that this summer's heat is not an anomaly but rather a new norm due to global environmental changes such as jet stream stagnation and rising sea surface temperatures. The Celsius scale, named after Swedish astronomer Anders Celsius, defines the freezing point of water at 0 degrees and the boiling point at 100 degrees under standard atmospheric pressure, dividing the range into 100 equal parts. This standard, originating from a single individual's name, has been accepted as a rational basis for social order over time.
While atmospheric temperatures fluctuate according to physical laws, the temperature of social conflict rises and falls based on institutional design and political choices. If only the atmospheric temperature had increased this summer, it might have been bearable. However, our society has lost its 'rational standards' for mutual acceptance, leading to deeper conflicts. At the center of this turmoil is the rapid transformation of the judicial system.
The abolition of supplementary investigation rights has eliminated prosecutors' investigative powers. While the intent behind this reform—to check prosecutorial power—is valid, the expansion of prosecutorial authority has been partly due to the reliance on criminal procedures for issues that could be resolved civilly. In our civil litigation system, victims are required to prove almost everything, yet the tools for proof are often inadequate, leading to a heavy reliance on prosecutorial investigations for victim relief. However, during the reform process, there has been no corresponding enhancement of civil remedies. The ecosystem for victim relief based on prosecutorial investigations has not been adequately considered. Despite the importance of this issue, recent debates surrounding the abolition of supplementary investigation rights have devolved into a battleground of partisan logic, making rational discussion difficult. Voices advocating for the necessity of supplementary investigation rights for victims have struggled to gain traction against the backdrop of prosecutorial reform. Behind the banner of reform lies the lives of citizens who are the actual victims. The fact that these citizens find it increasingly difficult to seek redress, regardless of institutional goodwill or political justification, is why this conflict is unlikely to cool down easily.
Amidst the erosion of trust in judicial procedures, the recently enacted crime of judicial distortion has also become a source of heightened conflict. According to the National Police Agency, within just four months of its implementation, 529 judges have been accused or reported under this law. Examples include instances where judges sought clarifications on issues or mandated the submission of responses, as well as instances where they restricted questions in court. While indiscriminate accusations may be filtered out through findings of no wrongdoing or false accusations, the real concern is the growing perception that 'if one is dissatisfied with a ruling, they can target the judge for accusations.' If even minimal trust in judicial rulings collapses, courts will no longer serve as the 'final destination' for resolving conflicts but will instead become a 'transfer station' that generates further disputes.
The current situation of eroding trust in the judiciary paradoxically leads to calls for 'AI judges.' Comments on articles reporting criminal trial outcomes often include suggestions to replace judges with AI when people are dissatisfied with verdicts. While many of these comments may be made in jest, some appear to be quite serious. The belief that introducing AI would lead to rational judgments and resolve conflicts is likely misguided. Large language models, including ChatGPT, categorize information and prioritize facts and concepts, a process inherently influenced by numerous value judgments. However, AI's decision-making lacks public discourse or social consensus, relying solely on the design and operational standards of large tech companies. In this process, the sovereign becomes a passive consumer of results presented by technological systems rather than an active decision-maker. Ultimately, the enticing notion of 'AI judges' does not provide a rational key to conflict resolution but rather hands over the subjectivity and accountability of judicial judgments to individual companies lacking democratic legitimacy, creating new conflicts.
Carbon reduction policies aimed at addressing global environmental changes are not akin to an air conditioner that cools the room at the push of a button. However, they represent a minimal condition to slow the rising speed of the thermometer and prevent further deterioration. Our society is witnessing a political landscape where those meant to mediate conflicts instead fuel partisan divisions, showing little sign of cooling tensions. Judicial reform has been consumed as a topic for partisan fandom rather than rational discussion, leading to the complete abolition of prosecutorial investigative rights without proper remedies and the introduction of the crime of judicial distortion. This does not lower the temperature of social conflict but rather has the potential to ignite even more intense disputes. To reduce the temperature of conflict, politicians must first step off the accelerator of biased fandom that exacerbates these tensions and reclaim rational standards of dialogue and compromise. Otherwise, the irrational heat wave pressing down on our society will not relent.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.