Prosecutors Warn Against Abolishing Supplementary Investigations, Citing Risks of Unchecked Power

South Korean prosecutors are strongly opposing the proposed abolition of supplementary investigations, arguing that such a move would represent the worst possible outcome for prosecutorial reform. They contend that eliminating this investigative function would create a dangerous situation where prosecutors operate without adequate oversight. This perspective highlights concerns that unchecked prosecutorial power could lead to significant abuses or miscarriages of justice. The argument suggests that the current system, including supplementary investigations, is crucial for maintaining accountability within the prosecution service. Without these checks and balances, the risk of arbitrary or biased investigations is perceived to increase substantially. This debate underscores a fundamental disagreement on the structure and oversight of the justice system in South Korea. The prosecutors' stance emphasizes the need for robust mechanisms to control and review prosecutorial actions. They believe that the proposed reform, if enacted, would undermine the very principles of fairness and due process that legal reforms aim to strengthen. The core of their argument rests on the idea that a prosecutor operating without sufficient external or internal controls poses a greater threat than the continuation of supplementary investigations.