It is hardly secret that Korea spends a ton of money in English education. So is that money doing anything? According to the newest data, it seems to be working. The latest report by Education First, a Britain-based language education company, Korea is 13th in the world in terms of English proficiency among the countries that do not use English as the first language, and third in Asia following Malaysia and Hong Kong. Unsurprisingly, the top of the chart is dominated by European countries. Given that Korea has been in dire poverty until the 1980s and Korean language is really far apart from English compared to most European languages, this is a solid showing.
There are a few surprises in the list when it comes to Korea. Korea's English proficiency is only slightly behind Hong Kong, and significantly better than India -- two former British colonies. Korea's English proficiency is also better than Mexico, a country that is right next to as well as has significant economic ties with the U.S. Korea's English proficiency is also ahead of several wealthy European countries like France, Portugal, Italy and Spain. And considering Korea's English push went up into another gear at around late 1990s, the Korean would expect more improvement in the future.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
Ask a Korean! News: Interview with Shin Kyung-Sook
The novel Please Look After Mom is poised to break out in the American market. The novel is in its third print, after selling out 103,000 copies to the bookstores through the first two prints already. Dong-A Ilbo interviewed the author Shin Kyung-Sook. Translation is below.
On April 5, the English version of Please Look After Mom was officially released in the United States. Novelist Shin Kyung-Sook could hardly conceal her excitement, saying: "It almost has been 30 years since I debuted at age 22, but it feels like I am just starting out." Shin, met at the Consulate of Korea in New York, said: "I am gradually feeling that there is an increasing number of Americans who have read Korean literature, since Korea Literature Translation Institute has been consistently introducing Korean literature to America."
Q: Please Look After Mom is popular in America. Why do you think that is?
A: I think maybe there was a contact with the zeitgeist of the modern civilization, which lives on while forgetting the existence of mothers. The emotion toward mother seems to be the same in U.S. and in Korea. It doesn't matter whether the mom was found or not found in my book, because moms are in all of our hearts.
Q: Today was the official release of the translated version. How do you feel?
A: It feels like a deja vu. Feels like I am repeating what happened in Korea. The responses by the readers or the media are similar to Korea's as well. I heard that translated works take up less than 3 percent of American publishing market, so I am happy that my book is being well-received.
Q: How was the responses by American readers that you met?
A: I met a lot of them in book readings. One person talked about regretting not having reconciled with the mother that she had a fallout, and another person talked about being able to look back on how he acted toward his mother.
Q: There must be a flavor of language and writing particular to Shin Kyung-Sook. Do you think the translated version kept the flavor well?
A: The publisher worked on it for more than a year, and the initial translation was great. If there are still things that did not get digested in the process, that is really because of the huge difference in language. There might be some things that changed, but both the translator and I worked hard to translate it as closely as possible.
Q: Will you write something about your stay in America?
A: I am collecting a lot of raw material from my experience as a visitor here. [TK: Shin is a visiting scholar at Columbia University.] I listened to a lot of stories by a lot of people. I think over time, the experience and thoughts from here will be reflected into my works.
Q: Will you write a work with an eye toward publishing abroad?
A: I can only do my best in my mother tongue. I don't think I can write to the tastes of foreign readers. There have been persistent efforts to introduce Korean literature abroad in the last decade, and the results are starting to show. Before, there was not enough material to conduct a class, but now there are many short stories available in English. I taught a class at Columbia with the translated version of my work Strawberry Field, and I was happy to see that the students were able to fully understand the work and ask questions.
“엄마에 대한 감정은 韓-美 똑같은 것 같아” [Dong-A Ilbo]
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
* * *
On April 5, the English version of Please Look After Mom was officially released in the United States. Novelist Shin Kyung-Sook could hardly conceal her excitement, saying: "It almost has been 30 years since I debuted at age 22, but it feels like I am just starting out." Shin, met at the Consulate of Korea in New York, said: "I am gradually feeling that there is an increasing number of Americans who have read Korean literature, since Korea Literature Translation Institute has been consistently introducing Korean literature to America."
Q: Please Look After Mom is popular in America. Why do you think that is?
A: I think maybe there was a contact with the zeitgeist of the modern civilization, which lives on while forgetting the existence of mothers. The emotion toward mother seems to be the same in U.S. and in Korea. It doesn't matter whether the mom was found or not found in my book, because moms are in all of our hearts.
Q: Today was the official release of the translated version. How do you feel?
A: It feels like a deja vu. Feels like I am repeating what happened in Korea. The responses by the readers or the media are similar to Korea's as well. I heard that translated works take up less than 3 percent of American publishing market, so I am happy that my book is being well-received.
Q: How was the responses by American readers that you met?
A: I met a lot of them in book readings. One person talked about regretting not having reconciled with the mother that she had a fallout, and another person talked about being able to look back on how he acted toward his mother.
Q: There must be a flavor of language and writing particular to Shin Kyung-Sook. Do you think the translated version kept the flavor well?
A: The publisher worked on it for more than a year, and the initial translation was great. If there are still things that did not get digested in the process, that is really because of the huge difference in language. There might be some things that changed, but both the translator and I worked hard to translate it as closely as possible.
Q: Will you write something about your stay in America?
A: I am collecting a lot of raw material from my experience as a visitor here. [TK: Shin is a visiting scholar at Columbia University.] I listened to a lot of stories by a lot of people. I think over time, the experience and thoughts from here will be reflected into my works.
Q: Will you write a work with an eye toward publishing abroad?
A: I can only do my best in my mother tongue. I don't think I can write to the tastes of foreign readers. There have been persistent efforts to introduce Korean literature abroad in the last decade, and the results are starting to show. Before, there was not enough material to conduct a class, but now there are many short stories available in English. I taught a class at Columbia with the translated version of my work Strawberry Field, and I was happy to see that the students were able to fully understand the work and ask questions.
“엄마에 대한 감정은 韓-美 똑같은 것 같아” [Dong-A Ilbo]
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
About Legal Self-Defense, Making the Unreasonable Reasonable
Dear Korean,
Today I read a shocking article on the Korea Times website about a bus driver who has been convicted of assault for preventing a sexual molester from attacking a woman. Do you know much about South Korean's prosecution law and under what possible way this is true? How is a man sentenced to jail for being a Good Samaritan by helping out the sexually harassed woman? It makes me wonder about the public perception regarding this case in South Korea... The guy was obviously delivering justice and order in his bus...
Su
While we are on the law topic, let us get this question out of the way also. Many Koreans thought this news was outrageous as well, and it was duly covered by a number of English language blogs about Korea with similar level of outrage. Understandably so -- just reading the headline "Bus driver convicted for injuring sexual assaulter" is quite enough to make our imagination rush to the most dramatic picture possible. A rape was in progress, and the bus driver stopped it! How dare the court send the heroic bus driver to jail! But upon closer examination, people's reaction provides a classic anatomy of how misinformation spreads because of incomplete characterizations laced with salacious language.
First of all, let us look at the Korea Times article itself, because we often get so heated by the sensationalism that we miss the information that is plainly right in front of us. There are many factoids in the article that suggest that it was not exactly the case in which a bus driver stopped an ongoing rape by a depraved rapist. The "sexual assaulter" was a student "at a school for the disabled." That should tell the reader something. And what was the "sexual assault," exactly? It was "groping." Not to make light of unwanted touching, but groping is not exactly rape. Also, nobody went to jail. The sentence was suspended for two years -- which means while the bus driver was formally sentenced to six months in prison, he will never go to jail as long as he was on good behavior for two years.
More after the jump.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
So let us dig further. The Korean already cautioned several times that the news in English about Korea is not completely trustworthy, as they often miss important details or fail to highlight the total context. The important missing context in this case was this: how did the assaulter get injured, and what was the extent of the injury? Several Korean newspaper articles give more details. Putting all the details together, this is the most focused picture of what happened, based on available news:
But even at this point, the Korean was perplexed. The criminal code of Korea clearly recognizes justifiable self-defense. The justifiable self-defense extends to rescuing others in need also. Jail sentence, even if a suspended one, seemed excessive. At this point, the Korean started asking his friends who are attorneys in Korea. They were generally in agreement with the Korean, and expected the sentence to be significantly reduced or eliminated in the appeal. And sure enough, the sentence was reduced on appeal, such that the driver only has to pay KRW 1 million [= a little less than $1,000] to the assaulter.
(Say this about Korea's court system -- it moves really, really fast. It only took two months between the lower court's verdict and the appellate court's verdict.)
One might ask: Why did the bus driver have to pay anything at all? This is where a subtle difference between American and Korean law comes into play. Both in American law and Korean law, self-defense is limited by proportionality. That is, the responding defense ought to be proportionate to the threat posed. For example, if a purse snatcher took your purse and started running away, pulling a gun and shooting the purse snatcher in the back is not a justifiable self-defense. This is true in both Korea and U.S.
But here is the difference that did not register to the Korean's mindset as an American law-trained attorney: the "bandwidth" of proportionality is different in the U.S. and in Korea. In the U.S., the allowable response to a threat is greater than the same allowed in Korea. In an extreme case, even shooting at and killing someone who came into your house by mistake can be considered justifiable self-defense. In 1992 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, a person shot and killed a totally unarmed 16-year-old Japanese exchange student who mistakenly came into his house in search of a Halloween party. (The student spoke no English and did not understand the word "freeze.") The shooter was acquitted from manslaughter, because the jury believed the shooter was justified to kill the student. (Thankfully, American justice system at least got half of the case right. In a separate civil suit, the shooter was ordered to pay $650,000 to the family of the Japanese student in compensation. For all you lawyers and law students, here is a good law review article discussing the case.) Needless to say, Korea's requirement for proportionality between the threat posed and the justifiable force used in response is a lot more strict.
With that context, now everything makes sense. The court must have focused on the fact that the bus driver D punched A in the face and caused broken eye socket. The court must have considered it to be a disproportionate response to stopping a scuffle involving a mentally challenged person. Punching takes a lot more intention than ordinary pushing and shoving. The result might have been different if D pushed A away, and A broke his wrist in the fall. The Korean is not totally on board with the court's conclusion, but it is still within the realm of being reasonable.
Now, let us look at the end result. What was once a ridiculous story in which the court threw into jail a heroic bus driver who rescued a damsel in distress is now a more-or-less reasonable story in which a bus driver is paying less than $1,000 for using excessive force while breaking up a tussle. The lesson? When something about Korea -- or really, about anything else -- looks totally outrageous, digging deeper and getting the full context usually produce a reasonable explanation.
One last point about the criminal settlement that was discussed in yesterday's post -- the K-blogosphere had a field day with this line in the Korea Times article: "Although the injury took place while the bus driver was trying to stop the male student from making a scene, he injured him and it required six weeks of hospital treatment. Also he did not come to any settlement with the student,” the court said in a ruling."
Today I read a shocking article on the Korea Times website about a bus driver who has been convicted of assault for preventing a sexual molester from attacking a woman. Do you know much about South Korean's prosecution law and under what possible way this is true? How is a man sentenced to jail for being a Good Samaritan by helping out the sexually harassed woman? It makes me wonder about the public perception regarding this case in South Korea... The guy was obviously delivering justice and order in his bus...
Su
While we are on the law topic, let us get this question out of the way also. Many Koreans thought this news was outrageous as well, and it was duly covered by a number of English language blogs about Korea with similar level of outrage. Understandably so -- just reading the headline "Bus driver convicted for injuring sexual assaulter" is quite enough to make our imagination rush to the most dramatic picture possible. A rape was in progress, and the bus driver stopped it! How dare the court send the heroic bus driver to jail! But upon closer examination, people's reaction provides a classic anatomy of how misinformation spreads because of incomplete characterizations laced with salacious language.
First of all, let us look at the Korea Times article itself, because we often get so heated by the sensationalism that we miss the information that is plainly right in front of us. There are many factoids in the article that suggest that it was not exactly the case in which a bus driver stopped an ongoing rape by a depraved rapist. The "sexual assaulter" was a student "at a school for the disabled." That should tell the reader something. And what was the "sexual assault," exactly? It was "groping." Not to make light of unwanted touching, but groping is not exactly rape. Also, nobody went to jail. The sentence was suspended for two years -- which means while the bus driver was formally sentenced to six months in prison, he will never go to jail as long as he was on good behavior for two years.
More after the jump.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
So let us dig further. The Korean already cautioned several times that the news in English about Korea is not completely trustworthy, as they often miss important details or fail to highlight the total context. The important missing context in this case was this: how did the assaulter get injured, and what was the extent of the injury? Several Korean newspaper articles give more details. Putting all the details together, this is the most focused picture of what happened, based on available news:
Not exactly a picture of a heroic bus driver stopping a rape in progress, is it? In this picture, the sexual assault was not only minor, but also almost totally irrelevant. What the driver stopped is not a sexual assault. (It was B, the chaperon, who stopped the groping.) What D stopped is a scuffle between A, the mentally disabled student, and B, the student's chaperon. At no point was C, the female student, at the risk of significant physical harm. But hey, telling a story about a bus driver stopping a fight between a mentally challenged student and his chaperon doesn't sell the newspapers."A, a mentally challenged 18-year-old male student, was riding a bus with his chaperon B, a 50-year-old woman. After taking a seat, A began groping a female student C, who was sitting in front of A. B asked C to change her seat, and C changed her seat. A became unhappy that B put C away from him, and charged at B. A got on top of B and pressed down. Bus driver D noticed the commotion, stopped the bus and came into the scuffle between A and B. D attempted to take A off of B. In the process of doing so, D punched A in the face and broke A's left eye socket, requiring six weeks of treatment."
But even at this point, the Korean was perplexed. The criminal code of Korea clearly recognizes justifiable self-defense. The justifiable self-defense extends to rescuing others in need also. Jail sentence, even if a suspended one, seemed excessive. At this point, the Korean started asking his friends who are attorneys in Korea. They were generally in agreement with the Korean, and expected the sentence to be significantly reduced or eliminated in the appeal. And sure enough, the sentence was reduced on appeal, such that the driver only has to pay KRW 1 million [= a little less than $1,000] to the assaulter.
(Say this about Korea's court system -- it moves really, really fast. It only took two months between the lower court's verdict and the appellate court's verdict.)
One might ask: Why did the bus driver have to pay anything at all? This is where a subtle difference between American and Korean law comes into play. Both in American law and Korean law, self-defense is limited by proportionality. That is, the responding defense ought to be proportionate to the threat posed. For example, if a purse snatcher took your purse and started running away, pulling a gun and shooting the purse snatcher in the back is not a justifiable self-defense. This is true in both Korea and U.S.
But here is the difference that did not register to the Korean's mindset as an American law-trained attorney: the "bandwidth" of proportionality is different in the U.S. and in Korea. In the U.S., the allowable response to a threat is greater than the same allowed in Korea. In an extreme case, even shooting at and killing someone who came into your house by mistake can be considered justifiable self-defense. In 1992 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, a person shot and killed a totally unarmed 16-year-old Japanese exchange student who mistakenly came into his house in search of a Halloween party. (The student spoke no English and did not understand the word "freeze.") The shooter was acquitted from manslaughter, because the jury believed the shooter was justified to kill the student. (Thankfully, American justice system at least got half of the case right. In a separate civil suit, the shooter was ordered to pay $650,000 to the family of the Japanese student in compensation. For all you lawyers and law students, here is a good law review article discussing the case.) Needless to say, Korea's requirement for proportionality between the threat posed and the justifiable force used in response is a lot more strict.
With that context, now everything makes sense. The court must have focused on the fact that the bus driver D punched A in the face and caused broken eye socket. The court must have considered it to be a disproportionate response to stopping a scuffle involving a mentally challenged person. Punching takes a lot more intention than ordinary pushing and shoving. The result might have been different if D pushed A away, and A broke his wrist in the fall. The Korean is not totally on board with the court's conclusion, but it is still within the realm of being reasonable.
Now, let us look at the end result. What was once a ridiculous story in which the court threw into jail a heroic bus driver who rescued a damsel in distress is now a more-or-less reasonable story in which a bus driver is paying less than $1,000 for using excessive force while breaking up a tussle. The lesson? When something about Korea -- or really, about anything else -- looks totally outrageous, digging deeper and getting the full context usually produce a reasonable explanation.
One last point about the criminal settlement that was discussed in yesterday's post -- the K-blogosphere had a field day with this line in the Korea Times article: "Although the injury took place while the bus driver was trying to stop the male student from making a scene, he injured him and it required six weeks of hospital treatment. Also he did not come to any settlement with the student,” the court said in a ruling."
Seizing upon the emphasized sentence, the haters howled with glee. Not only the court is jailing a hero who prevented rape, the court is throwing this guy in jail BECAUSE HE DIDN'T PAY BLOOD MONEY!! LOLZ KOREA SUCKS. But of course, that is not true. As you might have learned from yesterday's post, that statement by the court is nothing more than a plain statement of fact -- without a settlement, a sentence is always coming. It is just like an American court noting that "Because the plea bargain failed, the defendant is sentenced to 15 years in prison." The defendant is not getting the 15 years in prison because she did not agree to a plea deal -- she is getting that sentence because it is the result of her crime.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
What is All This About "Blood Money"?
Dear Korean,
I heard that in Korea, victims of crime are bribed with "blood money" instead of having their cases heard by the court. How can Korea let this injustice to continue? Why is Korea such a backward country with no sense of justice?
MuQ
For this question, the Korean is stealing the feature from Ask a Filipino! by setting up a question from "MuQ", i.e. "Made-up Questioner." (It's pronounced like "muck," rhymes with "luck.") The reason why the Korean does is twofold: one, because people who like to talk about "blood money" in Korea are so ignorant that they won't even ask a question about this, and; two, because the Korean is fucking sick and tired of this stupid misinformation, and wants to set the record straight once and for all.
Let us start with a hypothetical. Suppose person A punched person B and caused injury. The police comes and arrests A. What happens next is pretty significantly different depending on whether you are in the U.S. or in Korea.
In the U.S., there are two separate avenues through which A is punished -- A can be charged by the district attorney (a prosecutor), go through the criminal justice process in the court, and either go to jail or pay a fine to the government. Separately, B can sue A in the civil court for battery, and get compensation from A. Importantly, what B decides to do in the civil court, theoretically, does not affect what the district attorney does to A in the criminal court.
In Korea, the two processes interact closely. Almost immediately after arrest and police investigation, the police asks B if he wants to settle the case. If B accepts the settlement and gets paid settlement money, the prosecutor (for the most part) does not pursue criminal charges against A. This settlement money is what is often decried as "blood money," particularly among expats in Korea.
More after the jump.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
Let's get a little more technical. In the world, two of the largest "families" of law are Common Law and Civil Law. Common Law is the legal system used in most English-speaking countries and former English colonies, including England, the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India etc. Civil Law is the legal system used in pretty much everywhere else, including the continental Europe, Central and South America, majority of Africa and Asia, etc.
There are many differences between Common Law and Civil Law. The relevant difference here is the separation between tort and criminal law. "Tort" is a Common Law term denoting a violation of one person's rights by another. For example, trespassing is a tort because the trespassing person violated the rights of the landowner to keep her land in peace. Unsurprisingly, most crimes are also torts because most crimes involve someone violating the rights of someone else. For example, battery is a crime and a tort at the same time.
Under Common Law -- as explained above -- there is a separation between tort and criminal law. The ability to prosecute a criminal case totally belongs to the government. (If you watched a lot of Law and Order, this is what is often referred to as "absolute prosecutorial discretion.") Let's go back to the above example. Suppose, for some reason (say, because A paid B a lot of money,) B does not want A to go to jail. But B's intention never matters in the Common Law criminal justice system; the prosecutor can still choose to prosecute A and put A in jail if she wants to.
A good example that shows this separation is the O.J. Simpson case. As famously known, O.J. Simpson was found innocent by the court of law under the criminal charges of murdering his wife. But at the same time, Simpson was held liable for the tort claim of wrongful death brought by the surviving families of his wife, and was ordered to pay $33.5 million in compensation.
Here is the point where Civil Law, and specifically Korean law, differs from Common Law. Under Civil Law, there is no separate category called "tort law." Instead, broadly speaking, torts against properties fall under the civil law (notice the lower cases,) and torts against persons fall under the criminal law. And instead of having a totally separate process of compensating for tort against persons, the criminal justice system also takes charge of compensating the victim for the tort.
Now, here is an issue -- if the prosecutor in the Civil Law criminal justice system had absolute prosecutorial discretion like her counterpart in the Common Law criminal justice system, the victim of the crime/tort would have no say in handling the event that affected him first and foremost. That seems unjust. So Civil Law's solution is to designate certain crimes as "private crimes" -- crimes which require the consent of the victim in one form or another before the prosecutor can proceed with the criminal charges.
In Korean law, there are two forms of private crimes -- direct-action crimes [친고죄] and no-prosecution-contrary-to-intent crimes [반의사불벌죄]. (The translations are the Korean's own and not official.) The difference between the two is that the direct-action crimes require the victim to actively ask the prosecutor to pursue the charges. These include rape, defamation, libel/slander, etc. In contrast, the prosecutor may pursue no-prosecution-contrary-to-intent crimes on her own, as long as the victim does not express the wish to stop the prosecution. Such crimes include battery, extortion, negligent driving, writing false check, etc. The difference is legally meaningful, but in practice, they operate in a pretty similar manner. (Note: except for rape, the most serious crimes (e.g. homicide) are not categorized as private crimes.)
So let us go back to the A and B example one more time, and suppose they are in Korea. A committed a battery against B by punching B and causing injury. B now has a huge leverage over A. Suppose all B wants to do is to get the money for medical care and move on with his life, because B's injuries are not too serious. Then B can offer that possibility to A: "pay me, and you don't go to jail because I will tell the police/prosecutor not to prosecute." And indeed, that is what ends up happening for most private crimes in Korea -- A compensates B for the injuries he caused, and the criminal case against A stops. This makes sense because most crimes are petty, and the victim is usually content to get paid and move on.
Important thing to note is that there is absolutely no obligation for B to enter into a settlement. If B wants to make sure that A goes to jail AND pays B for the injuries, B can continue to have the police and the prosecutor press criminal charges. But there may be practical considerations as to why B might prefer a settlement over continuing to press charges. With the settlement, the payment of the money is certain and prompt. Once the case goes through prosecution and trial, B must utterly rely on the prosecutor to win the case for him. The criminal justice process also takes time, and there is always some level of uncertainty as to whether A will actually be convicted, or how much fine the judge would assess on A. The police in Korea is also known to strongly encourage settlement on what it deems to be a minor case, as a means to reduce the workload.
But these kinds of practical consideration are hardly unseemly; in fact, they are nearly universal in all criminal justice systems in the world. For example, in the U.S. (unlike in Korea,) the prosecutor is allowed to bargain prison sentences with a criminal defendant in exchange for a voluntary admission of guilt. (This is known as plea bargaining.) In this kind of situation, the defendant is also totally free to reject the plea offer, but also faces the same kind of practical considerations that steer her toward accepting the plea bargain. Even if the defendant might think she is completely innocent, she might agree to a bargained sentence of 6 years in prison if the prosecutor threatens with a charge that comes with 18 years in prison. The prosecutor also has reasons to favor plea bargaining, as it ends the case quickly and reduces workload. Consequently, overwhelming majority (90 percent) of criminal cases in America ends in a plea deal.
The Korean can see how someone who only knows the Common Law system might consider the Civil Law criminal settlement to be "blood money," "bribe" or "extortion." If the criminal process is totally separate from the civil process, it seems illegitimate for a civil defendant to affect the criminal process against him. But under Civil Law (notice the upper cases,) this is not only completely legitimate, but also has significant advantages over the Common Law system. The biggest advantage is that under this system, the victims of a crime get compensated very, very quickly without spending any money on lawyers or burdening the justice system.
Here is a real life example. In the winter of 2009, the Korean was victimized by a criminal. He was driving home from work late at night, and this drunk person came up to the Korean's car, stopped at the red light, and began randomly kicking the car. The Korean called the police, and the criminal was arrested. The Korean followed him to the police station to give a witness statement. The Korean's car suffered several dents on the door.
Now, if this were in Korea, this is what would have happened. Damaging a property through disorderly conduct is a private crime. The Korean can choose to stop the criminal charges against the car-kicker in exchange for getting paid enough to fix the car. The Korean really does not care if the car-kicker goes to jail or not. In fact, if the Korean had to choose, he would prefer having the car-kicker pay the cost of fixing the car over having him go to jail. So the Korean would have expressed that to the police officer. The police officer would then hold the case until the Korean confirms the payment by the car-kicker, who would be given usually a few weeks to come up with the money. A few weeks later, the Korean is paid, the car-kicker gets his just desserts for being drunk and stupid, and the police drops the case. It never reaches the prosecutor or the court, and the Korean never spends any money out of pocket.
Theoretically, this is how it plays out in the U.S. The Korean has zero power over the criminal process -- he is merely a witness to a crime. The prosecutor (Manhattan D.A. in this case) has all the power to pursue the criminal charges. If the Korean wants to get paid from the car-kicker, he needs to retain a lawyer and file a civil action against the car-kicker, for the tort of trespass against property. It will be at least several months, and likely more than a year, along with several court appearances, before the Korean gets his money. After paying his lawyer (who would charge at least $100 an hour or work at a contingency fee basis to take a chunk of the Korean's recovery,) the Korean would be lucky to get the money for half of the cost to fix his car, which carried the ugly dents the whole time. (Forget for a moment that the Korean is himself a lawyer and would probably represent himself.)
The following is what actually ended up happening, which is hugely illuminating. In order to avoid the scenario outlined above, most American D.A.'s offices coordinate with the victim and drop the charges or significantly lower the sentence as long as the proper restitution is paid to the victim -- just like Korea. The case went to the Manhattan D.A.'s office, who told the Korean that the car-kicker agreed to pay the restitution and the D.A. would give him a lower sentence. It still took several months before the case progresses through the D.A.'s office and the court. Under the plea agreement with the D.A.'s office, the car-kicker received the sentence of community service and restitution to the Korean. The car-kicker paid restitution to the New York City bureaucracy, which promptly lost the paperwork. After dozens of haranguing phone calls to the appropriate department in the NYC and the Manhattan D.A.'s office, the Korean was told LAST WEEK -- a little less than a year and a half after the crime -- that the restitution check is on the way. (And the Korean should consider himself lucky, because he used to work for a different D.A.'s office and knows how the process works. Who knows what happened if the Korean was just a regular person?)
Moral of the story? Common Law system actually tries to mimic the advantages of what is denounced as "blood money," and it is not even very good at doing that because inherently, a criminal case in the Common Law system must be shepherded by the prosecutor and the government. In contrast, the "private crimes" system in the Civil Law is fast, gives a definite resolution, and only minimally involves the government.
But like any system, this is not without flaws. Probably the biggest flaw is that often, a victim of a crime cannot properly assess the extent of her loss through the crime. If a person is beat up, the person might suffer a lingering damage that does not flare up until the settlement amount was computed. Also, sometimes it is not the victim herself who enters into the settlement. This used to lead to an incredibly outrageous situation in case of child molestation. As noted above, rape is a private crime. (-EDIT- As of June 2013, rape is no longer a private crime.) Since a child does not have the legal decision-making authority, the parents would handle the private crime process. And often, a molested child would come from a broken home, in which the parent would rather take a lump sum of cash right away rather than ensuring that the child rapist would go to jail. (Fortunately, this situation was redressed in 2008 by a new law that made child molestation a public crime.) Also, the inclusion of rape as a private crime is roundly criticized by many legal scholars, as it puts a burden on the victim to pursue what is a very serious crime that significantly threatens the social order. (To be sure, rape with battery, i.e. a violent case of rape, is a public crime. But, for example, a date rape involving drugs is a private crime.)
So here is the short summary of what is mistakenly known as "blood money": it is a type of settlement payment that stops the progress of a criminal charge, a common device in the Civil Law systems whose advantages the Common Law systems attempt to replicate, albeit poorly. If that is all you wanted to know, you can stop reading now.
But that is not the Korean's final word about this "blood money" shit. The whole reason why the Korean wrote this post in the first place is because he is so FUCKING SICK AND TIRED OF IGNORANT, COMPLAINING EXPATS IN KOREA. That's right, the Korean said it. That is not to say that all expats are ignorant, nor is it to say all expat complaints are illegitimate kvetching. A significant percentage of the questions directed to the Korean are from expats in Korea, and the Korean finds the overwhelming majority of them to be polite, respectful and genuinely curious about Korea. But there is no denying that a significant proportion of (current and former) expats spend their lodging ignorant complaints about Korea, enough for the Korean and Roboseyo to have a joint two-part series that are still one of the most read posts on AAK!
For THAT kind of expats, this so-called "blood money" is a favorite garbage to spew over K-blogosphere. A few choice samples:
(Source)
(Source)
(Source)
And this so-called "blood money" issue is so great because it clearly shows everything obnoxious about THAT kind of expats. Really, just take a step back and look at how ignorantly myopic this is. People who call a criminal settlement "blood money" have no idea about the difference between the Common Law and the Civil Law. Nor do they have any idea that the most number of people and nations of the world (by a large margin) subscribe to Civil Law, not Common Law. Nor do they have any idea that the concept of "private crimes" dates back to the Napoleonic Code and its origins are evident in the laws of the Ancient Rome, not in the traditions of Korea. Nor do they have any idea that the administrative advantages of what they derisively call "blood money" is so great that even Civil Law systems like the U.S. attempts to copy the concept in practice. Nor do they have any idea that the plea bargaining in American criminal justice system operates in exactly the same way (i.e. bargaining criminal sentences, often in consultation with the victim in practice,) and in some cases creates much more odious injustice.
None of this matters for THAT kind of expats. For THAT kind of expats, the only justice in the world is their style of justice. (Never mind that Common Law style of criminal justice seeks to emulate the advantages of Civil Law criminal justice!) Anything that does not fit with what they know is considered a "bribe," "extortion," "blood money," and Korea is an illogical, backward country for having the kind of system that the majority of the world has.
The worst part is, THAT kind of expats have no idea that they have no idea. This is really the worst part. It is ok to not know something; no one knows everything. But it is not ok to think you know something, when in fact you actually don't know anything. It is most definitely not ok to denounce that something, and go onto tarnish the entire country and people based on that something, when you don't know anything about that something. This "blood money" meme has been circulating around K-blogosphere as long as the Korean could remember. So far in more than four years, the Korean received literally thousands of questions. The number of questions about "blood money"? Zero.
Is it possible to constructively criticize the private crime system in Korea? Of course. The Korean himself is an America-trained attorney, and he is not entirely happy with Korea's formulation of private crimes. Specifically, he thinks more serious crimes should be excluded from private crimes, and the system of criminal settlement should be more consistent and transparent. He makes this criticism to every Korean attorney he knows. But has the Korean ever seen this type of discussion about Korea's criminal justice system in K-blogosphere? Not a chance.
So here is the Korean's final word on this whole thing. If something in a different culture does not make sense to you, it is highly likely that you do not know the full context. Please have this faith in your heart -- people from Korea (or any other country for that matter) are reasonable people who do things for a good reason and not out of stupidity, backwardness or being illogical. If you knew the whole story, you would understand that good reason. And if you don't know the whole story, the only purpose for which to open your mouth should be to ask questions. Really, it is not like you don't know who to ask. Either ask questions, or shut up and learn. Don't be THAT kind of person.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
I heard that in Korea, victims of crime are bribed with "blood money" instead of having their cases heard by the court. How can Korea let this injustice to continue? Why is Korea such a backward country with no sense of justice?
MuQ
For this question, the Korean is stealing the feature from Ask a Filipino! by setting up a question from "MuQ", i.e. "Made-up Questioner." (It's pronounced like "muck," rhymes with "luck.") The reason why the Korean does is twofold: one, because people who like to talk about "blood money" in Korea are so ignorant that they won't even ask a question about this, and; two, because the Korean is fucking sick and tired of this stupid misinformation, and wants to set the record straight once and for all.
Let us start with a hypothetical. Suppose person A punched person B and caused injury. The police comes and arrests A. What happens next is pretty significantly different depending on whether you are in the U.S. or in Korea.
In the U.S., there are two separate avenues through which A is punished -- A can be charged by the district attorney (a prosecutor), go through the criminal justice process in the court, and either go to jail or pay a fine to the government. Separately, B can sue A in the civil court for battery, and get compensation from A. Importantly, what B decides to do in the civil court, theoretically, does not affect what the district attorney does to A in the criminal court.
In Korea, the two processes interact closely. Almost immediately after arrest and police investigation, the police asks B if he wants to settle the case. If B accepts the settlement and gets paid settlement money, the prosecutor (for the most part) does not pursue criminal charges against A. This settlement money is what is often decried as "blood money," particularly among expats in Korea.
More after the jump.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
Let's get a little more technical. In the world, two of the largest "families" of law are Common Law and Civil Law. Common Law is the legal system used in most English-speaking countries and former English colonies, including England, the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India etc. Civil Law is the legal system used in pretty much everywhere else, including the continental Europe, Central and South America, majority of Africa and Asia, etc.
Legal systems of the world. Red is Common Law, and blue is Civil Law.
(Source)
There are many differences between Common Law and Civil Law. The relevant difference here is the separation between tort and criminal law. "Tort" is a Common Law term denoting a violation of one person's rights by another. For example, trespassing is a tort because the trespassing person violated the rights of the landowner to keep her land in peace. Unsurprisingly, most crimes are also torts because most crimes involve someone violating the rights of someone else. For example, battery is a crime and a tort at the same time.
Under Common Law -- as explained above -- there is a separation between tort and criminal law. The ability to prosecute a criminal case totally belongs to the government. (If you watched a lot of Law and Order, this is what is often referred to as "absolute prosecutorial discretion.") Let's go back to the above example. Suppose, for some reason (say, because A paid B a lot of money,) B does not want A to go to jail. But B's intention never matters in the Common Law criminal justice system; the prosecutor can still choose to prosecute A and put A in jail if she wants to.
A good example that shows this separation is the O.J. Simpson case. As famously known, O.J. Simpson was found innocent by the court of law under the criminal charges of murdering his wife. But at the same time, Simpson was held liable for the tort claim of wrongful death brought by the surviving families of his wife, and was ordered to pay $33.5 million in compensation.
Here is the point where Civil Law, and specifically Korean law, differs from Common Law. Under Civil Law, there is no separate category called "tort law." Instead, broadly speaking, torts against properties fall under the civil law (notice the lower cases,) and torts against persons fall under the criminal law. And instead of having a totally separate process of compensating for tort against persons, the criminal justice system also takes charge of compensating the victim for the tort.
Now, here is an issue -- if the prosecutor in the Civil Law criminal justice system had absolute prosecutorial discretion like her counterpart in the Common Law criminal justice system, the victim of the crime/tort would have no say in handling the event that affected him first and foremost. That seems unjust. So Civil Law's solution is to designate certain crimes as "private crimes" -- crimes which require the consent of the victim in one form or another before the prosecutor can proceed with the criminal charges.
In Korean law, there are two forms of private crimes -- direct-action crimes [친고죄] and no-prosecution-contrary-to-intent crimes [반의사불벌죄]. (The translations are the Korean's own and not official.) The difference between the two is that the direct-action crimes require the victim to actively ask the prosecutor to pursue the charges. These include rape, defamation, libel/slander, etc. In contrast, the prosecutor may pursue no-prosecution-contrary-to-intent crimes on her own, as long as the victim does not express the wish to stop the prosecution. Such crimes include battery, extortion, negligent driving, writing false check, etc. The difference is legally meaningful, but in practice, they operate in a pretty similar manner. (Note: except for rape, the most serious crimes (e.g. homicide) are not categorized as private crimes.)
So let us go back to the A and B example one more time, and suppose they are in Korea. A committed a battery against B by punching B and causing injury. B now has a huge leverage over A. Suppose all B wants to do is to get the money for medical care and move on with his life, because B's injuries are not too serious. Then B can offer that possibility to A: "pay me, and you don't go to jail because I will tell the police/prosecutor not to prosecute." And indeed, that is what ends up happening for most private crimes in Korea -- A compensates B for the injuries he caused, and the criminal case against A stops. This makes sense because most crimes are petty, and the victim is usually content to get paid and move on.
Important thing to note is that there is absolutely no obligation for B to enter into a settlement. If B wants to make sure that A goes to jail AND pays B for the injuries, B can continue to have the police and the prosecutor press criminal charges. But there may be practical considerations as to why B might prefer a settlement over continuing to press charges. With the settlement, the payment of the money is certain and prompt. Once the case goes through prosecution and trial, B must utterly rely on the prosecutor to win the case for him. The criminal justice process also takes time, and there is always some level of uncertainty as to whether A will actually be convicted, or how much fine the judge would assess on A. The police in Korea is also known to strongly encourage settlement on what it deems to be a minor case, as a means to reduce the workload.
But these kinds of practical consideration are hardly unseemly; in fact, they are nearly universal in all criminal justice systems in the world. For example, in the U.S. (unlike in Korea,) the prosecutor is allowed to bargain prison sentences with a criminal defendant in exchange for a voluntary admission of guilt. (This is known as plea bargaining.) In this kind of situation, the defendant is also totally free to reject the plea offer, but also faces the same kind of practical considerations that steer her toward accepting the plea bargain. Even if the defendant might think she is completely innocent, she might agree to a bargained sentence of 6 years in prison if the prosecutor threatens with a charge that comes with 18 years in prison. The prosecutor also has reasons to favor plea bargaining, as it ends the case quickly and reduces workload. Consequently, overwhelming majority (90 percent) of criminal cases in America ends in a plea deal.
The Korean can see how someone who only knows the Common Law system might consider the Civil Law criminal settlement to be "blood money," "bribe" or "extortion." If the criminal process is totally separate from the civil process, it seems illegitimate for a civil defendant to affect the criminal process against him. But under Civil Law (notice the upper cases,) this is not only completely legitimate, but also has significant advantages over the Common Law system. The biggest advantage is that under this system, the victims of a crime get compensated very, very quickly without spending any money on lawyers or burdening the justice system.
Here is a real life example. In the winter of 2009, the Korean was victimized by a criminal. He was driving home from work late at night, and this drunk person came up to the Korean's car, stopped at the red light, and began randomly kicking the car. The Korean called the police, and the criminal was arrested. The Korean followed him to the police station to give a witness statement. The Korean's car suffered several dents on the door.
Now, if this were in Korea, this is what would have happened. Damaging a property through disorderly conduct is a private crime. The Korean can choose to stop the criminal charges against the car-kicker in exchange for getting paid enough to fix the car. The Korean really does not care if the car-kicker goes to jail or not. In fact, if the Korean had to choose, he would prefer having the car-kicker pay the cost of fixing the car over having him go to jail. So the Korean would have expressed that to the police officer. The police officer would then hold the case until the Korean confirms the payment by the car-kicker, who would be given usually a few weeks to come up with the money. A few weeks later, the Korean is paid, the car-kicker gets his just desserts for being drunk and stupid, and the police drops the case. It never reaches the prosecutor or the court, and the Korean never spends any money out of pocket.
Theoretically, this is how it plays out in the U.S. The Korean has zero power over the criminal process -- he is merely a witness to a crime. The prosecutor (Manhattan D.A. in this case) has all the power to pursue the criminal charges. If the Korean wants to get paid from the car-kicker, he needs to retain a lawyer and file a civil action against the car-kicker, for the tort of trespass against property. It will be at least several months, and likely more than a year, along with several court appearances, before the Korean gets his money. After paying his lawyer (who would charge at least $100 an hour or work at a contingency fee basis to take a chunk of the Korean's recovery,) the Korean would be lucky to get the money for half of the cost to fix his car, which carried the ugly dents the whole time. (Forget for a moment that the Korean is himself a lawyer and would probably represent himself.)
The following is what actually ended up happening, which is hugely illuminating. In order to avoid the scenario outlined above, most American D.A.'s offices coordinate with the victim and drop the charges or significantly lower the sentence as long as the proper restitution is paid to the victim -- just like Korea. The case went to the Manhattan D.A.'s office, who told the Korean that the car-kicker agreed to pay the restitution and the D.A. would give him a lower sentence. It still took several months before the case progresses through the D.A.'s office and the court. Under the plea agreement with the D.A.'s office, the car-kicker received the sentence of community service and restitution to the Korean. The car-kicker paid restitution to the New York City bureaucracy, which promptly lost the paperwork. After dozens of haranguing phone calls to the appropriate department in the NYC and the Manhattan D.A.'s office, the Korean was told LAST WEEK -- a little less than a year and a half after the crime -- that the restitution check is on the way. (And the Korean should consider himself lucky, because he used to work for a different D.A.'s office and knows how the process works. Who knows what happened if the Korean was just a regular person?)
Moral of the story? Common Law system actually tries to mimic the advantages of what is denounced as "blood money," and it is not even very good at doing that because inherently, a criminal case in the Common Law system must be shepherded by the prosecutor and the government. In contrast, the "private crimes" system in the Civil Law is fast, gives a definite resolution, and only minimally involves the government.
But like any system, this is not without flaws. Probably the biggest flaw is that often, a victim of a crime cannot properly assess the extent of her loss through the crime. If a person is beat up, the person might suffer a lingering damage that does not flare up until the settlement amount was computed. Also, sometimes it is not the victim herself who enters into the settlement. This used to lead to an incredibly outrageous situation in case of child molestation. As noted above, rape is a private crime. (-EDIT- As of June 2013, rape is no longer a private crime.) Since a child does not have the legal decision-making authority, the parents would handle the private crime process. And often, a molested child would come from a broken home, in which the parent would rather take a lump sum of cash right away rather than ensuring that the child rapist would go to jail. (Fortunately, this situation was redressed in 2008 by a new law that made child molestation a public crime.) Also, the inclusion of rape as a private crime is roundly criticized by many legal scholars, as it puts a burden on the victim to pursue what is a very serious crime that significantly threatens the social order. (To be sure, rape with battery, i.e. a violent case of rape, is a public crime. But, for example, a date rape involving drugs is a private crime.)
So here is the short summary of what is mistakenly known as "blood money": it is a type of settlement payment that stops the progress of a criminal charge, a common device in the Civil Law systems whose advantages the Common Law systems attempt to replicate, albeit poorly. If that is all you wanted to know, you can stop reading now.
But that is not the Korean's final word about this "blood money" shit. The whole reason why the Korean wrote this post in the first place is because he is so FUCKING SICK AND TIRED OF IGNORANT, COMPLAINING EXPATS IN KOREA. That's right, the Korean said it. That is not to say that all expats are ignorant, nor is it to say all expat complaints are illegitimate kvetching. A significant percentage of the questions directed to the Korean are from expats in Korea, and the Korean finds the overwhelming majority of them to be polite, respectful and genuinely curious about Korea. But there is no denying that a significant proportion of (current and former) expats spend their lodging ignorant complaints about Korea, enough for the Korean and Roboseyo to have a joint two-part series that are still one of the most read posts on AAK!
For THAT kind of expats, this so-called "blood money" is a favorite garbage to spew over K-blogosphere. A few choice samples:
I honestly have a real problem with money as a form of compensation in almost all situations. Especially the Korean idea of "blood money". It's shallow and has no place in a supposed "first world country" who's aspiration is to become a legitimate democracy.
[Concerning Korean teenagers charged with rape in Canada] Thos [sic] Korean guys are going to wish they’d stayed in Korea. If convicted, their lives are over! Here in Korea, they could pay “blood money” and take care of most of their headaches. No such luck in Canada.
[Concerning a judge who gave a jail sentence because criminal settlement was not reached] The logic of the trial judge seems to be a fine example of K-Logic. [Linked to here, a blog post mocking Korea for its apparent inability to hold a logical thought.]
And this so-called "blood money" issue is so great because it clearly shows everything obnoxious about THAT kind of expats. Really, just take a step back and look at how ignorantly myopic this is. People who call a criminal settlement "blood money" have no idea about the difference between the Common Law and the Civil Law. Nor do they have any idea that the most number of people and nations of the world (by a large margin) subscribe to Civil Law, not Common Law. Nor do they have any idea that the concept of "private crimes" dates back to the Napoleonic Code and its origins are evident in the laws of the Ancient Rome, not in the traditions of Korea. Nor do they have any idea that the administrative advantages of what they derisively call "blood money" is so great that even Civil Law systems like the U.S. attempts to copy the concept in practice. Nor do they have any idea that the plea bargaining in American criminal justice system operates in exactly the same way (i.e. bargaining criminal sentences, often in consultation with the victim in practice,) and in some cases creates much more odious injustice.
None of this matters for THAT kind of expats. For THAT kind of expats, the only justice in the world is their style of justice. (Never mind that Common Law style of criminal justice seeks to emulate the advantages of Civil Law criminal justice!) Anything that does not fit with what they know is considered a "bribe," "extortion," "blood money," and Korea is an illogical, backward country for having the kind of system that the majority of the world has.
The worst part is, THAT kind of expats have no idea that they have no idea. This is really the worst part. It is ok to not know something; no one knows everything. But it is not ok to think you know something, when in fact you actually don't know anything. It is most definitely not ok to denounce that something, and go onto tarnish the entire country and people based on that something, when you don't know anything about that something. This "blood money" meme has been circulating around K-blogosphere as long as the Korean could remember. So far in more than four years, the Korean received literally thousands of questions. The number of questions about "blood money"? Zero.
Is it possible to constructively criticize the private crime system in Korea? Of course. The Korean himself is an America-trained attorney, and he is not entirely happy with Korea's formulation of private crimes. Specifically, he thinks more serious crimes should be excluded from private crimes, and the system of criminal settlement should be more consistent and transparent. He makes this criticism to every Korean attorney he knows. But has the Korean ever seen this type of discussion about Korea's criminal justice system in K-blogosphere? Not a chance.
So here is the Korean's final word on this whole thing. If something in a different culture does not make sense to you, it is highly likely that you do not know the full context. Please have this faith in your heart -- people from Korea (or any other country for that matter) are reasonable people who do things for a good reason and not out of stupidity, backwardness or being illogical. If you knew the whole story, you would understand that good reason. And if you don't know the whole story, the only purpose for which to open your mouth should be to ask questions. Really, it is not like you don't know who to ask. Either ask questions, or shut up and learn. Don't be THAT kind of person.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
Excellent news -- Please Look After Mom, a Korean novel by Shin Kyung-Sook translated into English, is receiving glowing reviews. The latest one is from the New York Times, which spent not one but two articles praising the book. It was also included in Oprah's book club. Perhaps this could be the start of Korean literature making meaningful inroads with English-language readers.
Assorted April Fool's Day Stuff
Best April Fool's Day joke that the Korean saw today:
How did the Korean knew it was a joke? Because Korean guy lost the game :)
Here is another interesting bit of news about April Fool's Day in Korea. As technology advances, prank phone calls to police and fire stations decreased from 475 in 2004 to 47 this year. Instead, the jokes apparently migrated to Twitter and Facebook.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
How did the Korean knew it was a joke? Because Korean guy lost the game :)
Here is another interesting bit of news about April Fool's Day in Korea. As technology advances, prank phone calls to police and fire stations decreased from 475 in 2004 to 47 this year. Instead, the jokes apparently migrated to Twitter and Facebook.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)