|
|
Characters
- Professor, Noh, Don-l, Kyung Hee University
- Kim, Hwa-rang, Junior in the School of Law, Kyung Hee University
- Ryu, Hye-kyung, Freshman in the Social Science, Ewha Womans University
- Song, Hyun-taek, Freshman in the School of Politics, KonKuk University
- Kim, Dae-Hyeon, Sophomore in the Department of Medicine, Seoul National University
Professor, Noh, Don-l informed that the next class is going to discuss the movie, “In My Sleep.” Therefore, Hyun-taek, Dae-hyeon, and Hwa-rang are watching the DVD together.
Marcus, a main character of “In My Sleep”, has a sleepwalking disorder. One day when he woke up as usual, he found blood stains on his body and saw a bloody knife under his bed. Then he heard that his best friend’s wife was killed. Every clue said that Marcus murdered her, but the people around him started to doubt him as the suspect.
While watching the scene where the victim’s sister and a police officer suspect Marcus as the murderer, Hyun-taek raised a question.
Hyun-taek : Is Marcus the real criminal? If he is the real murderer while sleepwalking, then how much penalty will he receive if convicted?
Dae-hyeon : While sleepwalking, a person is an unconscious state. Also, Marcus has no responsibility for his sleepwalking, I think the judge should reduce his penalty than a normal person for murder considering his situation. Isn’t that right?
Hwa-rang : Of course, I can concede Marcus’ sleepwalking and he can not remember his crime for this. He knew his sleeping sickness before the crime, but did not do anything to relieve his sickness. Only after the incident did he try to reduce his sickness by going to a sleeping clinic, restraining his body by putting handcuffs, etc. Sleepwalking is not his fault, but he did not make any effort before the incident. The judge does not have to reduce his penalty.
Dae-hyeon : Marcus just knew that he has sleepwalking, but did not know his sleepwalking is serious. He noticed it after the incident, and thus he tried to reduce his symptom. Of course if he did such efforts before the event, the result could have been different. However, Marcus did not feel it was serious enough to warrant further attention, believing his sleepwalking was not a big deal. Serious thing is that it is hard for him to press himself from sleepwalking.
Hwa-rang : However, the most important thing is that he is a murderer. Though while sleepwalking he cannot suppress himself by his reason, he is responsible for killing someone. Should his penalty get commutation? I think the liability of murder is always the same in every situation.
Hyun-taek : As to what you said, Marcus was in a situation in which he could not control himself. I think judg-ment and reason has a great effect on human behavior. Thus, it is proper for him to receive a reduced punishment considering his condition.
Hwa-rang : Hmm, I don’t blame your opinion. By the way, stop this and watch the rest of the movie. Anyway, we have a discussion related to the movie in class tomorrow.
# The next day in class
Professor : Did you watch the movie? I guess the movie gave you a chance to think about the crime in an unconscious state. There are also crimes that are committed while in a state of unconsciousness in the present. They are crimes while drunk, such as vandalism, violence, and a recent issue, Cho, Doo-soon’s crime. You can see in the drunk criminal’s judgment that being drunk affects the penalty. How much do we consider being drunk in penalties?
For your guidance, when a judge weighs an offense, he considers whether there is a purpose and fault and a situation of undertrial. In addition, he thinks about the attacker’s liability, but actually those standards are all debatable.
Dae-hyeon : The responsibility of the crime is the same as a normal criminal’s because the state of being drunk is his fault. He can control himself not to be drunk. If a person does not know what he will do after getting drunk, he should refrain from drinking.
Hyun-taek : Getting drunk is an autonomous behavior. However, a crime after being drunk is different. Though reason gets weak when a person becomes drunk, there is a little responsibility. Committing a crime is different whether reason is possible or not. Thus, drunk criminals should be condemned differently than other criminals.
Hye-kyung : Except being dead drunk by other people, responsibilities of dead drunk and a crime are his own fault, because drinking a lot can cause a difficulty of controlling his reason. Thus we can understand it that the person drunk with noticing danger of committing a crime.
Hwa-rang : When judge weighs an offense, they also consider motive; a way and result of the crime are also important factors. Reducing a penalty considering a state of drunkenness is because there is not enough motive for a crime.
Professor : The second section of the 10th amendment of the Korean criminal law says, “If the incident occurs by a weak-minded person who is weak in discriminating objects or making decisions because of a mental and physical disorder, judgement has to reduce his penalty.” A person who is drunk is included as being weak-minded. However, in this law, there are problems of responsibility and misuse as we said. Those are the problems we should solve together.
Hye-kyung : It is obvious that unfair cases can happen when the same penalty is given to all drunk criminals. We should not make a difference in reducing the penalty for criminals who commit a crime as a mistake. We have to solve the problem of misuse by giving a stronger penalty to criminals who commit a second offense, lie and intend to misuse the criminal law or know the danger of committing a crime when drunk.
Hwa-rang : Furthermore, people need to change their attitude towards drinking alcohol. If he thinks he will have difficulty suppressing himself when drinking, he should refrain from it. Then, people who are unfair by com-mitting a crime can be disappear.
The sleepwalking crime in “In My Sleep” can be commuted according to Korean criminal law because it is a mental and physical disorder and an unconscious condition. However, what about Cho, Doo-soon’s crime? Nevertheless, there is no evidence which can prove his insistence that he was drunk. His penalty is 12 years. Of course, the examination of an offense is for the judge. Thus, the penalty can be different in every crime in which alcohol is present. However, the law should represent the victims’ mind. Why don’t we think about the problems of the criminal’s liability and misusing of the law?