Police
Person A, an individual with a developmental disability, received a suspended indictment from prosecutors two years ago, just after turning 20. At the time, A visited a bank ATM alone. The ATM, which A had learned about through his mother, was like a “magic box” to him. Even his small gestures produced immediate responses, such as the screen changing or a small door opening. However, with an intellectual level of only three to four years of age, he did not understand the value or meaning of money, nor did he know how to use the ATM.
That day was like any other. The difference was that an elderly couple had left a wallet containing 800,000 won at the ATM. As A pressed the ATM buttons and a deposit slot opened, he put the money from the wallet inside and headed home. The wallet, and the money, remained inside the ATM.
A police investigation began after the “lost wallet” was reported. Based on closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage, police summoned A for questioning. His mother, worried about her son who has difficulty communicating, accompanied him. After the questioning ended, the mother conveyed her apologies to the elderly couple. Upon hearing that A had a developmental disability, the couple submitted a statement to police requesting that he not be punished. Nevertheless, police forwarded A to prosecutors with an opinion recommending indictment without detention on theft charges.
Person B, also an individual with a developmental disability, visited police last year with his father. C, whom B had met online, had borrowed more than 1.5 million won for various reasons but had returned only a small amount, with no full repayment made. The money B had lent was earned working at a standard workplace for people with disabilities. Because B knew simple internet banking methods from receiving his salary, he was able to transfer money to C. However, the two only communicated online, and B did not have C’s personal contact information. B’s father requested that police investigate. But police only repeated statements such as “It is a small amount, so investigation is not easy, and it also takes a long time,” and “Even if we investigate, the chance of recovering the money is not high.” They did not even explain the existence of dedicated police officers for people with developmental disabilities. In the end, B and his father had to turn away.
With the launch of a new criminal justice system this October, voices are being raised calling for a strengthened investigation framework for people with developmental disabilities and others. This is because, while conventions, laws, and regulations closely specify provisions to be observed when investigating people with disabilities, the reality does not measure up. Experts advise that “practical alternatives are needed to lower the threshold of the law.”
The Statue of Justice – lady justice or Iustitia / Justitia the Roman goddess of Justice
According to the legal community on the 19th, the number of dedicated police officers for people with developmental disabilities within the police reaches 12,472. This is based on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Act on Guarantee of Rights and Support for Persons with Developmental Disabilities (Developmental Disabilities Act), among others. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities states that it “shall ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others, including through the provision of procedural and age-appropriate accommodations, in order to facilitate their effective role as direct and indirect participants, including as witnesses, in legal proceedings.” To this end, it also promotes appropriate training for those working in the field of administration of justice, including police and correctional officers. The Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities also stipulates that “no discriminatory act shall be committed against persons with disabilities in judicial and administrative procedures and the provision of services.” It also requires that persons with disabilities be informed of their right to receive assistance with communication and expression in criminal and judicial procedures.
The Act on Guarantee of Rights and Support for Persons with Developmental Disabilities (Developmental Disabilities Act) contains provisions on a dedicated investigation system for people with developmental disabilities. Under Article 13 of the act, the Prosecutor General and the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency must each designate dedicated prosecutors and judicial police officers for people with developmental disabilities and have them conduct investigations or interrogations. They must also provide education on the characteristics of people with developmental disabilities, communication methods, and investigation methods to the dedicated prosecutors and judicial police officers. Allowances may also be paid to dedicated prosecutors and judicial police officers for people with developmental disabilities within budgetary limits. The Rules on Human Rights Protection in Police Investigations (Police Human Rights Protection Rules) list provisions to be observed during investigations in even greater detail. According to the Police Human Rights Protection Rules, police officers must select and carry out investigation methods appropriate to the type of disability when investigating persons with disabilities. They may assist statements by involving people who can help with communication and expression, such as through sign language, text interpretation, braille materials, and reading aloud. In particular, under the Developmental Disabilities Act, investigations of people with developmental disabilities are required to be conducted by dedicated police officers, but there is no shortage of criticism that the reality does not measure up. In other words, although laws, regulations, and rules are closely established, they are not being properly applied in practice.
An academic who requested anonymity pointed out, “Although the law requires that education be conducted every year (for dedicated judicial police officers and others), the level of understanding (of people with developmental disabilities) among dedicated police officers for people with developmental disabilities still does not appear to be high.” He added, “Though they are called ‘dedicated,’ they also handle other investigation duties, so it is questionable whether the system is actually operated properly in the field.”
A senior judge at a Seoul metropolitan-area district court also noted, “Concerns are being raised that the criminal justice ‘blind spot’ for people with developmental disabilities could grow even larger after the abolition of the Prosecutors’ Office.” He said this is “because at a time when the dedicated system for people with developmental disabilities has not properly taken root, all case investigations could become 100% the responsibility of the police going forward.” He added, “Due to factors such as excessive workload, cases in which people with disabilities are victims may not be properly investigated and could be buried,” and “conversely, when a person with a developmental disability is a suspect, there is a possibility that the case could be forwarded to prosecutors in a ‘blanket indictment opinion’ manner.” This means that people with developmental disabilities could suffer criminal and judicial disadvantages either because legitimate investigations are not carried out and damage is not remedied, or because cases that should not be forwarded are instead handed over to prosecutors. In fact, although the dedicated trial division for people with developmental disabilities has entered its third year of operation at the Seoul District Court, the number of cases is not large. In 2024, its first year, a total of 17 cases were received and 14 were processed. Last year, 22 cases were received, of which 15 were processed, with the number of cases handled per year remaining at around 10-plus.
LawStory