The Constitutional Court on Thursday upheld a law imposing harsher penalties for murdering a parent or other direct ascendant than for ordinary murder.
The court ruled 8-1 that Article 250, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Act, which prescribes aggravated punishment for killing one’s own or one’s spouse’s direct ascendant, is constitutional.
Under the provision, those convicted face the death penalty, life imprisonment or a prison term of at least seven years. Ordinary murder, by comparison, carries the death penalty, life imprisonment or a minimum prison term of five years.
The court said the harsher punishment was justified by the greater social condemnation associated with killing a direct ascendant.
“The legislative purpose of protecting the fundamental moral relationships between direct ascendants and descendants is legitimate,” the court said.
It added that murdering a direct ascendant fundamentally undermines the special bonds between parents and children and threatens the foundation of the family community.
Justice Ma Eun-hyeok was the sole dissenter, arguing that the provision fails to account for the varying circumstances in which such killings occur.
“While some cases involve heinous crimes driven by greed, others occur when anger accumulated over years of violence and abuse by a parent or other direct ascendant erupts,” Ma said.
He argued that in such circumstances, it would be difficult to conclude that a person who kills a direct ascendant bears greater culpability than someone convicted of ordinary murder.
Ma also pointed to the provision’s minimum prison term of seven years. Even when judges reduce that minimum by half through discretionary mitigation, it remains three years and six months, making a suspended sentence unavailable without additional grounds for mitigation.
The case stemmed from a constitutional complaint filed by an individual convicted of killing their seriously ill father.
According to court records, the petitioner had been caring for their father in 2021 while struggling to afford medical expenses.
The petitioner eventually stopped providing food and water, resulting in the father’s death.
The petitioner was convicted of murdering a direct ascendant and sentenced to four years in prison.
During an appeal to the Supreme Court, the petitioner requested that the court refer the aggravated punishment provision to the Constitutional Court for constitutional review. The request was rejected, and the four-year sentence was upheld.
The petitioner subsequently filed a constitutional complaint in May 2022, challenging the provision.
The Constitutional Court previously upheld the same provision in July 2013, ruling 7-2 that the aggravated punishment for murdering a direct ascendant was constitutional.
seungku99@heraldcorp.com