More than 70% of requests to impose electronic ankle monitors on violent offenders were rejected by courts this year, according to an analysis of first-trial rulings. In most of those cases, courts declined to order monitoring even for offenders assessed as more likely to reoffend than Choi Chung-rak, 59, the suspect in a recent knife attack in Incheon. Courts cited reasons such as probation being sufficient to prevent repeat offenses. With the Incheon attack raising questions about the effectiveness of electronic monitoring and probation, critics say the standards for ordering ankle monitors must first be clarified.
The Seoul Economic Daily analyzed first-trial rulings in violent crime cases published on the judiciary's information disclosure portal from January of this year through the present. Of 24 cases in which prosecutors requested an ankle monitor, 17, or 70.8%, were rejected, the newspaper reported on the 17th. In 11 of those cases, the defendant had been classified as at "high" risk of reoffending under assessments including the Korean Offender Risk Assessment System-General (KORAS-G). Eleven of the 17 defendants whose monitoring orders were rejected had prior convictions.
In seven cases, monitoring was rejected even though the defendant scored 15 points or higher on the risk assessment, above the 14 points recorded by Choi, the Incheon knife attack suspect. No monitoring order was issued in a case in which a defendant with 13 prior punishments for violent crimes struck a neighbor with an iron hammer in an attempted murder. Courts rejected the requests on grounds such as that probation would be sufficient, that the defendant had potential for rehabilitation, or that it was difficult to conclude there was a risk of reoffending.
In 2015, Choi stabbed his former wife multiple times in the arm and near the heart with a kitchen knife after she refused his demand that they reunite following their divorce. The court sentenced him to four years in prison and ordered him to wear an ankle monitor for 10 years after his release. Choi scored 14 points on the risk assessment, placing him in the "high" category, and had 10 prior convictions, including two previous attempted murders.
Yet there were numerous cases in which defendants scored higher than Choi on the risk assessment and still avoided an ankle monitor. In January, the Jeonju District Court rejected a monitoring order for a defendant identified as B, who scored 17 points. 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 hiking knife. The court said the defendant had no prior record of homicide and that it was difficult to conclude there was a risk the defendant would commit homicide again.
In the case of a man with 13 prior convictions for violence who had been booked 33 times, sentenced to prison eight times and served 12 years and six months behind bars, the Daegu District Court rejected a monitoring order in his attempted murder trial, saying probation alone would be sufficient to prevent reoffending. A defendant who wielded a knife against a random victim, as in the Incheon Guwol-dong case, also avoided monitoring. In April, the Suwon District Court sentenced a man who stabbed a delivery worker in his 50s multiple times with two knives while hallucinating to five years in prison and five years of probation, but rejected the monitoring request.
In some cases, monitoring was rejected even though the defendant was rated "high" risk, on the grounds that the score was relatively low within that category. A defendant who committed indecent assault against a minor while having a prior sex crime record scored 16 points on the risk assessment and 25 points on a psychopathy screening tool. The court nonetheless 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 offered 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 to August this year. As of last month, there were 1,986 probation officers, each handling 40 to 50 cases. The Incheon knife attack suspect 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 standards for granting or rejecting ankle monitor requests," he said.
Kim Sang-gyun, a professor in the department of police science at Baekseok University, said judgment criteria need to be clarified by using qualitative assessments alongside objective indicators such as risk assessments. "When a monitoring order is rejected, probation itself needs to be upgraded, through measures such as profiling, so that supervision can be carried out properly," he said.