Towards Reconciling Law and the Culture of Happiness in Korean Society
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
On February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court of Korea (the “Court”) decriminalized adultery pursuant to the constitutionally protected privacy of autonomous persons, characterized from the explicit “right to privacy” and the right of sexual self-determination implied from the “right to pursue one’s happiness” enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Despite acknowledging a legitimate governmental purpose in regulating adultery, the Court majority determined that “[s]exual life and love is a private matter, which should not be subject to the control of criminal punishment.” The Court’s reasoning followed because traditional family values and interests in sexual monogamy have declined in recent years “along with rapid spread of individualism and liberal views on sexual life,” such that there is “no longer any public consensus regarding the appropriateness of criminalization of adultery” and Korean society is “changing into one where the private interest of sexual autonomy is put before the social interest of sexual morality and families from the perspective of dignity and happiness of individuals.” The ruling credits the philosophy of liberalism, and more particularly its extreme expression in decisionism, which supports the belief that moral proposals are based on what individuals are willing to choose and commit to, such that rights precede any set notions of good. Decisionism credits little to no significance to the difference between government by the will of the people and government by the self-oriented and self-serving whim of the people. The decision of the Court also reflects prudent caution to distinguish the recognition of any helpful general deterrence effect of justified punishment from the questionable attempt to substantiate criminalization merely to use the socially deviant person as a means, and not as a Kantian end, to function as a human shield for societal self-defense. If a person’s acts represent the socially acceptable, though marginal, desires of a large portion of the public, the imposition of criminal penalties as a deterrent is arguably problematic. Penal sanction may not be justifiable in an environment of popular sovereignty when the culture has so deteriorated that it no longer supports the law. However, government should not fall back on pragmatic fatalism, with respect to the growing divide between law and public morality, by deferring to the opinion of citizens as to what leads to utilitarian happiness. Rather than merely resorting to judicial abeyance of the indiscriminate sexual mores of the population, the current state of affairs calls for dialogism, or a collaborative and consultative dialectic between societal constituents that leads to a normatively balanced and consistent consensus concerning the virtues and values that the progressive Korean culture upholds.
Abstract
On February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court of Korea (the “Court”) decriminalized adultery pursuant to the constitutionally protected privacy of autonomous persons, characterized from the explicit “right to privacy” and the right of sexual self-determination implied from the “right to pursue one’s happiness” enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. Despite acknowledging a legitimate governmental purpose in regulating adultery, the Court majority determined that “[s]exual life and love is a private matter, which should not be subject to the control of criminal punishment.” The Court’s reasoning followed because traditional family values and interests in sexual monogamy have declined in recent years “along with rapid spread of individualism and liberal views on sexual life,” such that there is “no longer any public consensus regarding the appropriateness of criminalization of adultery” and Korean society is “changing into one where the private interest of sexual autonomy is put before the social interest of sexual morality and families from the perspective of dignity and happiness of individuals.” The ruling credits the philosophy of liberalism, and more particularly its extreme expression in decisionism, which supports the belief that moral proposals are based on what individuals are willing to choose and commit to, such that rights precede any set notions of good. Decisionism credits little to no significance to the difference between government by the will of the people and government by the self-oriented and self-serving whim of the people. The decision of the Court also reflects prudent caution to distinguish the recognition of any helpful general deterrence effect of justified punishment from the questionable attempt to substantiate criminalization merely to use the socially deviant person as a means, and not as a Kantian end, to function as a human shield for societal self-defense. If a person’s acts represent the socially acceptable, though marginal, desires of a large portion of the public, the imposition of criminal penalties as a deterrent is arguably problematic. Penal sanction may not be justifiable in an environment of popular sovereignty when the culture has so deteriorated that it no longer supports the law. However, government should not fall back on pragmatic fatalism, with respect to the growing divide between law and public morality, by deferring to the opinion of citizens as to what leads to utilitarian happiness. Rather than merely resorting to judicial abeyance of the indiscriminate sexual mores of the population, the current state of affairs calls for dialogism, or a collaborative and consultative dialectic between societal constituents that leads to a normatively balanced and consistent consensus concerning the virtues and values that the progressive Korean culture upholds.
참고문헌 (38)
- Alasdair MacIntyre, "After Virtue" (2007)
- Alasdair MacIntyre, "Whose Justice? Which Rationality?" (1988)
- Albert W. Alschuler, "Law Without Values: The Life, Work, and Legacy of Justice Holmes" (2000), University of Chicago Press
- Ann Black, "When a Revealed Affair Is a Crime, But a Hidden One is Romance: An Overview of Adultery Law in the Republic of Korea", Int'l Surv. Fam. L., 2014 (2014)
- "Emory L. J", 1993, 647~
- Carli N. Conklin, "The Origins of the Pursuit of Happiness", Wash. U. Jurisprudence Rev., 7 (2015)
- Chien-Chih Lin, "Pace of Constitutional Transition Matters", UCLA J. Int’l L. & Foreign Aff., 20 (2016)
- "Half of Korean Men Have Cheated, Study, The Herald" (2016)[URL]
- Daniel M. Farrell, "Using Wrongdoers Rightly: Tadros on the Justification of General Deterrence", Crim. La. & Phil., 9 (2015)
- Drucilla Cornell, "Toward a Modern", Postmodern Reconstruction of Ethics, 1985, pp.133, ~
- Francis Cardinal George, "Law and Culture", Ave Maria L. Rev., 1 (2003)
- Hyeryoung Ok, "New Media Practices in Korea", Int’l J’ Comm, 5 (2011)
- Immanuel Kant, "Metaphysik der Sitten" (1922)
- Jibong Lim, "Pursuit of Happiness Clause in the Korean Constitution", J. Korean L., 1 (2001)
- Joel M Purles, "Balancing the Scales: Expanding the Family Movie Act to Protect Consumers After Clean Flicks of Colorado", LLC v. Sodenbergh, S. Cal. L. Rev., 81 (2008)
- John Lachs, "The Relevance of the Philosophy of Life" (1995), Vanderbilt Univ. Press
- John Locke, "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Vol.1"
- John Locke, "Two Treatises of Government: In the Former, the False Principles and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer, and His Followers, are Detected and Overthrown: The Latter is An Essay Concerning the Original, Extent, and End, of Civil Government"
- John Stuart Mill, "Appendix B to Bulwer-Lytton, England and the English", pp.1833~ (1833)
- Kiljun Park, "Tobacco Control in Korea", Med. & Law. (2004)
- Korea Legislation Research Institute, "Introduction to Korean Law" (2012), Springer
- Kuk Cho, "Aggravated Punishment on the Homicide of Lineal Ascendants in the Korean Penal Code: Maintain Filial Piety by Criminal Law?", J. Korean L., 3 (2003)
- "Court Rules Pop Idol Has Right to Pursue Happiness, Can Date"[URL]
- Marie Seong-Hak Kim, "In the Name of Custom, Culture and the Constitution: Korean Customary Law in Flux", Tex. Int'l L. J., 48 (2013)
- Marie Seong-Hak Kim, "Law and Custom in Korea" (2012), Cambridge University Press
- Naoki Kanaboshi, "Competent Persons' Constitutional Right to Refuse Medical Treatment in the U.S. and Japan: Application to Japanese Law", Penn St. Int'l L. Rev., 25 (2006)
- Oliver W. Holmes, "The Path of the Law", Reprint, B.U. L. Rev., 45 (1965)
- Roberta Rosenthal Kwall, "The Soul of Creativity: Forging a Moral Rights Law for the United States" (2009), Stanford University
- "Suspicion on the Components of Sanitary Pads, Is Women’s Pursuit of Happiness Guaranteed?" (2016)[URL]
- "Activists Pushing for Law to Recognize the Evolving Nature of Family in South Korea"[URL]
- 이석민, "Adultery and the Constitution: A Review on the Recent Decision of the Korean Constitutional Court on ‘Criminal Adultery’", Journal of Korean Law, 15(2), pp.325~353 (2016), 아시아태평양법연구소
- "South Korean Court Rules Trans People Can Change Gender Markers Without SRS"[URL]
- "South Korea’s Supreme Court Is Set to Decide If a 50 Year Old Transsexual Will Be Allowed to Officially Change His Gender This Week"[URL]
- Sun Goo Lee, "Criminalization of HIV in Korea : Fundamental Rights and International Perspectives", Quinnipiac Health L. J., 15 (2012)
- The Constitution of Korea, "the First Ten Years of the Korean Constitutional Court", ~ (2001)
- Torsten Weber, "The Pursuit of Happiness in Modern Japan, International Institute of Asian Studies", Newsletter, No.67, ~ (2014)
- Wen-Chen Chang, "Constitutionalism in Asia: Cases and Materials", ~ (2014)
- Y. Charles Ling Wu, "The Social Thought on Confucius", Chinese Soc. & Pol. Sci. Rev., 12 (1928)