Insensitivity to sex crimes
DPK hit for neglecting ethical standards
Cho Soo-jin, a lawyer who was selected as a candidate to run in the April 10 National Assembly elections on the Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) ticket, dropped out of the race on Friday amid allegations that she exacerbated the trauma of a child rape victim.
Her withdrawal from candidacy stemmed from ethical concerns surrounding her conduct. However, her resignation also sheds light on a systemic failure in the candidate selection process.
Initially, the candidate faced no scrutiny until she entered and emerged victorious in the internal competition to represent the DPK in Seoul’s Gangbuk B electoral district.
Last year, Cho represented a child predator who repeatedly sexually assaulted a fourth-grade schoolgirl, resulting in her contracting a sexually transmitted disease (STD). During her defense in the courtroom, Cho insinuated that the schoolgirl might have contracted the STD not from the assailant, but possibly from her father or other adults.
The attorney went on to suggest that the child attempted to conceal her sexual interactions with others by portraying the offender as a victim. Additionally, Cho shared on her blog her experience as a defense lawyer for an individual who produced child pornography, which sparked intense criticism. Despite her client receiving a suspended jail sentence, Cho uploaded this information on her blog as a means to promote herself as a proficient attorney.
The DPK, however, has been slow to respond to the controversy, failing to take any measures despite media reports about the case.
DPK Chairman Lee Jae-myung even defended Cho.
Lee said at a news conference on Thursday that the ruling People Power Party has a greater number of “bizarre and incomprehensible” candidates compared to the DPK. He emphasized that voters should ultimately decide the fate of the candidates on election day.
His dismissal of the case showcased a lack of seriousness, unveiling both his and his party’s insensitivity toward sex crimes and the issue of what’s called “secondary victimization” or re-traumatizing victims of sexual violence by reminding them of their painful past.
Feeling the pressure, Cho called it quits as public opinion against her and the DPK exacerbated further. In a statement on her social media, she said as an attorney, she tried to do her utmost to faithfully represent her clients. “Now I realize that from the public’s point of view, there was something wrong with my work as a lawyer,” she said.
Cho appears to epitomize a result-oriented individual who subscribes to the belief that the end justifies the means. This perspective likely drove her to take extreme measures to secure victory in court. While she may have been a reliable lawyer for the sex criminals she represented, her demeanor in the courtroom could have been harrowing for the victims. Her ruthlessness suggests a propensity for engaging in secondary victimization.
A person lacking compassion toward minorities and public accountability is hardly fit to be a lawmaker.
Furthermore, lawyers are expected to act ethically. And they are not supposed to cross the line.
In a statement issued on Friday, Lawyers for a Democratic Society, commonly known by its Korean acronym MINBYUN, outlined the expected conduct for defense lawyers in sex crime cases.
“If attorneys intrude or breach victims’ dignity or their human rights while defending their clients, their defense cannot be justified,” it said.
The progressive lawyers’ group expressed deep concerns about an increase in what it referred to as “profit-seeking lawyers” who turned a blind eye to ethical boundaries, stressing that they tried to address this ethical issue, but their efforts were not sufficient to prevent human rights violations of sex crime victims by some self-serving attorneys.
Under the current selection system, it is almost impossible for political parties to thoroughly scrutinize each and every candidate. Parties set up selection committees three or four months before election day and begin to recruit, accept, and review applicants and select candidates based on public opinion surveys, internal competition or top-down decisions. A span of three or four months is not long enough to adequately assess the moral suitability of potential candidates to run in elections. Parties need to consider introducing so-called “rolling” selections, under which aspiring politicians can apply at any time, regardless of election schedules, and party officials can review their documents and do background checks thoroughly with sufficient time.