Courts have repeatedly declined to order electronic ankle monitors for violent offenders scored as higher reoffending risks than A, the 59-year-old suspect in a recent knife attack in Incheon, according to a review of this year's rulings. Judges rejected the orders even for defendants rated as high risk, reasoning that probation alone could prevent further crimes. With the Incheon attack raising questions about the effectiveness of electronic supervision and probation, critics say the criteria for imposing ankle monitors must be clarified first.
A review by The Seoul Economic Daily of 17 first-instance rulings this year in which requests for ankle monitor orders were rejected found that in seven cases, or 41.2%, the defendant's reoffending risk score was higher than A's, the paper reported on the 16th. Courts nonetheless rejected the orders, citing reasons such as "probation is sufficient," "there is a possibility of rehabilitation," and "it is difficult to conclude that there is a risk of reoffending."
In 2015, A asked a former spouse to reconcile after their divorce and, when the request was refused, stabbed the victim repeatedly in the arm and near the heart with a kitchen knife. The court imposed a four-year prison term along with an order to wear an electronic ankle monitor for 10 years after release. A scored 14 points on the reoffending risk assessment, falling into the "high" category, and had 10 prior offenses, including two counts of attempted murder.
Yet a considerable number of defendants who scored higher than A on the risk assessment avoided ankle monitors. In January, the Jeonju District Court rejected a monitoring order for B, who scored 17 points on the assessment. B was indicted on charges of picking a fight with a man in his 20s who was eating fried chicken on an outdoor platform and stabbing him with a 28-centimeter hunting knife. The court ruled that B "has no prior record of homicide" and that "it is difficult to conclude that there is a risk of committing homicide again."
In the case of a man with 13 prior convictions for violent crime — booked 33 times, sentenced to prison eight times and having served 12 years and six months — who was indicted on attempted murder charges, the Daegu District Court rejected the monitoring order, saying "probation alone can prevent reoffending." A defendant who wielded a knife against a random victim, as in the Guwol-dong case in Incheon, also avoided a monitor. In April, the Suwon District Court sentenced a man who stabbed a delivery worker in his 50s repeatedly with two knives while hallucinating to five years in prison and five years of probation, but rejected the monitoring order.
In some cases, monitoring orders were rejected even for defendants rated "high" risk, on the grounds that their scores were relatively low within that category. A defendant who indecently assaulted a minor while already having a record of sexual offenses scored 16 points on the reoffending risk assessment and 25 points on a psychopathy screening test. The court rejected the monitoring order, citing reasons including that the score was comparatively low within the high-risk category and that schizophrenia is treatable.
Courts frequently pointed to probation as an alternative, but probation services also lack the capacity to closely supervise high-risk offenders. According to the Ministry of Justice, 83,424 cases were placed under probation from January through August this year. As of last month, there were 1,986 probation officers, meaning each handled 40 to 50 cases. The suspect in the Incheon knife attack had also met with a probation officer on the day of the attack, but the meeting did not prevent it.
Oh Yoon-sung, a professor of police administration at Soonchunhyang University, said it is hard for the public to accept that a monitoring order was rejected for a defendant who had been booked 33 times and had committed attempted murder. "Just as there are sentencing guidelines for homicide, the courts need objective criteria for granting or rejecting ankle monitor orders," Oh said.