Why hasn’t South Korea abolished the death penalty?

The death of two prisoners in 2025 brought to 57 the number of inmates on death row in South Korea. This reminds us that the country, although de facto abolitionist and having carried out no executions since 1997, retains the death penalty in its legislation.

Why maintain such a provision in a democratic state that has not used it for nearly three decades? This is what this article will attempt to shed light on.

Similar paradoxes can be found on a global scale. In 2024 an Amnesty International report reveals that the number of executions has reached its highest level since 2015. This global rise in executions contradicts the record number of countries that have completely ceased all capital executions.

France officially abolished capital punishment in October 1981. This was the result of a long political struggle led by Robert Badinter, who was inducted into the Pantheon in 2025. A parallel can be drawn between France and South Korea towards abolition, and will be discussed further below.

South Korea goes against the grain

Contrary to the international trend towards complete abolition, Asia remains culturally attached to capital punishment. Indeed, half of the 55 countries still practicing the death penalty are in Asia.

China is particularly prolific. It alone carries out as many executions per year as the rest of the world. It imposes capital punishment not only for murder, but also for crimes such as drug trafficking and tax evasion.

Japan also stands out. It is one of only two democratic countries in the world to practice the death penalty, along with the United States.

Asia is the region of the world most concerned by the death penalty debate. However, South Korea is an exception to its neighbors.

December 30, 2025 will mark the ^28th anniversary of the last execution to take place in South Korea. The country is therefore de facto abolitionist, i.e. in fact and not in legislation.

The abolition of the death penalty has often been the result of a “contagious effect”. In Europe, for example, the abolition of the death penalty was largely the result of “contagion”. The political decision to officially abolish the death penalty was sometimes a response to neighboring countries, or a desire to conform to international expectations. In contrast, this international pressure has never been sufficient to influence Asian governments. South Korea, however, has decided to suspend executions, drawing attention and questioning the mechanisms.

As with international pressure, it wasn’t public opinion that was in favor of abolition in South Korea either. Indeed, the moratorium on executions ran counter to popular opinion in South Korea. The population has always remained overwhelmingly in favor of the death penalty, with polls showing a 69.5% majority against abolition. It is worth noting, however, that the link between abolition and favorable public opinion does not necessarily exist. Countries that have abolished the death penalty have often done so against public opinion. France, for example, abolished capital punishment in 1981 when 60% of French people were against it.

In the light of these factors, we may well wonder about the nature of South Korea’s change of attitude towards the death penalty.

Why this change in perception?

Since time immemorial and under the dogma of Confucianism, Korea has practiced the death penalty. During theJapanese occupation, the death penalty was used to suppress Korean nationalism. With the division of Korea in 1945, authoritarian regimes were formed on both sides of the ^38th parallel. This led to the development of a climate where capital punishment was a common practice to guarantee national security.

Bae Sangmin (배상민) made a connection with the rise of democratic values. She associates the development of human rights with the change in South Korea’s attitude towards the death penalty. Nevertheless, since the establishment of the modern republic in 1948, 902 people have been executed. The death penalty was a tool of social control employed by successive authoritarian governments, which legitimized capital punishment on the grounds of the need to protect the nation.

While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was being adopted in 1948, South Korea passed a National Security Law legalizing the death penalty against “North Korean communists”.

Fear of a Communist revolt enabled the authoritarian regime to legitimize the death penalty. The death penalty became a tool of repression, used to ensure the survival of the ruling power. Political opponents were accused of espionage or Communist sympathies and executed in the name of national security.

Frank Gibney describes these practices as “legalized anarchy”. The law authorizes repression while making fully legitimate behavior that would normally be considered illegal.

It is in this context that South Korea legitimizes the withdrawal of the right to life to protect the innocent. It has also recognized the usefulness of the death penalty in the fight against crime on its territory. It has also recognized the usefulness of the death penalty in the fight against crime on its territory, thus legitimizing its anchoring in South Korean mores.

Kim Dae-jung and the protection of human rights

In 1998, the climate seemed propitious for new discussions on human rights. For the first time in its history, South Korea experienced a completely peaceful and democratic transfer of power.

In this context, President Kim Dae-jung (김대중), states that the evolution of fundamental and human rights in South Korea are among the most pressing ambitions of his term of office.

A survivor of death row, President Kim Dae-jung is strongly opposed to the death penalty. During his term, he fought against the practice, refusing to sign death sentences – a sine qua non for the execution of the death penalty to be effective. Throughout his presidency, Kim Dae-jung refused to sign any executions in South Korea.

In 2006, although he was no longer president, he continued his commitment to abolishing the death penalty. In particular, he gave a speech in support of Amnesty International’s campaign to abolish the death penalty.

Kim Dae-Jung says that “the reason [he] is opposed to the death penalty is [that it] cannot be a solution, and that it is an action that goes against democracy and human rights. [He] sincerely hopes that capital punishment can be abolished in order to achieve full democracy, not just in Korea, but throughout the world”.

He also said that “life is a God-given right”, and that no one “can violate the dignity of life”. During his term of office, he attempted to lift the sentences of those on death row. Despite his best efforts, he only succeeded in changing the sentence of 13 of them.

His successor, President Roh Moo-hyun (누무현), was also a champion of human rights. He also tried to lift death sentences for convicts, but met with little success. He did, however, succeed in having the sentences of 6 of the remaining convicts modified by means of a presidential pardon.

The abolitionist movement in Korea

The abolitionist movement in South Korea is based on the principle of the right to life. It is also based on the State’s desire to comply with international human rights standards.

The country gradually split into two camps: those supporting measures towards abolition, and those defending the retention of capital punishment in extreme cases.

The camp defending abolition, under the principle of the right to life, argues that national security concerns should never excuse or justify the continuation of this practice, especially when there is a possibility of wrongful conviction. In particular, President Kim argues that “giving death, even in the name of the law, is contrary to the very principle of human rights”. He also pointed out that the death penalty is contrary to the Korean Constitution, which prohibits disproportionate, cruel or unusual punishment.

The pro-death penalty camp argues that criminals, by committing their crimes, renounce their rights. Consequently, for them, the right to life is not inalienable, and can be revoked in exceptional circumstances, as in the case of criminals. In this respect, the death penalty would not violate human rights, since criminals have forfeited their rights to humanity by committing their crimes.

President Kim also highlighted the link, for him, between the formal abolition of the death penalty and South Korea’s credibility on the international stage. By participating in international human rights campaigns, the South Korean government can demonstrate its interest in becoming part of the global trend towards abolition. For it, abolition is a sine qua none condition guaranteeing South Korea’s legitimacy as a democratic state.

What does the future hold for the death penalty in Korea?

Despite visible efforts and significant advances, internal dissent continues to favor the status quo around de facto abolition. Indeed, although resolutions for abolition have been put forward repeatedly, none has been successful.

In 1996, South Korea’s Constitutional Court ruled that the death penalty was a “necessary evil” used to limit crime, an argument that is still widely accepted today. At the time, it was added that the death penalty should, however, only be applied in very exceptional cases, necessitating the protection of another life, or in order to preserve the public interest. Moreover, the Court insisted that the debate must remain open. Abolition must be reassessed when the death penalty is no longer necessary in South Korea.

This state of mind has led to a predominantly positive attitude on the part of judges. De facto abolition, with the last death sentence handed down in 2018, is the result.

However, the debate remains open in 2025 and continues to divide the population. When President Yoon (윤석열) was deposed after attempting to enforce martial law, the death penalty made a resurgence in discourse.

This attempt at martial law left a bitter taste of déjà vu for South Korea. The fact that it could happen in 2025 has shaken the democratic certainties of South Korea, which had thought itself immune to authoritarian excesses after several democratic mandates. This impeachment has once again prompted the population to rethink democracy and state legislation.

Conclusion

In short, South Korea is at a crossroads when it comes to the death penalty. De facto abolitionist since 1997, it nonetheless maintains legislation allowing its application. It’s a highly paradoxical situation, but one that can be explained by a combination of deep-rooted historical, political and cultural factors.

The South Korean debate reflects the tensions between national security, human rights and democratic legitimacy. While South Korea has moved closer to international standards by suspending executions, the absence of a political and popular consensus keeps the country in a fragile position that could topple at any moment.

Sources

• “The State of the World’s Human Rights: April 2025. Amnesty International, April 29, 2025, https://www.amnesty.org/fr/documents/pol10/8515/2025/fr/.

• Bae, Sangmin. “South Korea’s De Facto Abolition of the Death Penalty.” Pacific Affairs, vol. 82, no. 3, 2009, pp. 407-25. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25608914. Accessed 6 Oct. 2025.

• Frank Gibney, Korea’s Quiet Revolution: From Garrison State to Democracy (New York: Walker, 1992), p. 68.

• Kim Daejung, “A Contribution to the Campaign of Amnesty International for the Abolition of Capital Punishment,” Asia Death Penalty.

• Kim Daejung, “In Appreciation of the Announcement of Korea as a De Facto Abolitionist Country”. Speech at the Press Center, 2007.

• Donneaud, Adrien. “Peine de mort et droits de l’homme entre enjeu géopolitique et impératif éthique”. Death Studies, vol. 141,^no. 1, November 2012, pp. 9-24. shs.cairn.info, https://doi.org/10.3917/eslm.141.0009

• Colin, Jean-Yves. “Crise de Régime En Corée Du Sud?” Diplomatie, no. 132, 2025, pp. 46-49. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/48816472. Accessed 6 Oct. 2025.

• Two Death Row Inmates Die in Prison… Currently 57 Death Row Inmates Are Alive.–Word Korean. June 24, 2025, https://wordkorean.com/two-death-row-inmates-die-in-prison-currently-57-death-row-inmates-are-alive/.

• Statutes of the Republic of Korea. https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=39798&type=sogan&key=9.