Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the Asian region remains an exception to the global trend towards the abolition of capital punishment, South Korea, which has suspended executions for the past ten years, draws attention to the question of why and how defacto abolition has happened in this country. The purpose of this article is to explain the change in South Korea's death penalty practice, which is largely associated with the development of democratic values and human rights. Who are the leading figures in constructing and advancing abolitionist discourse and efforts in South Korean society? What are the major rationales for their advocacy? What significance does the possibility of South Korea's formal abolition have in terms of Asia's ongoing practice of the death penalty? This article seeks some answers to these questions, focusing on South Korea's recent abolitionist movement. The trend towards worldwide abolition of the death penalty is clear. As of May 2009, the number of countries that have ended capital punishment in law or practice (139) exceeds the number (58) that retain it.1 Among the 58 retentionist countries, only 24 actually carried out executions in 2007. Countries that continue to carry out executions today do so mostly for murder, although they may retain the death penalty in law for other crimes. The rate of executions in most such countries has declined to a point where it represents only a tiny fraction in relation to the number of reported murders. Many intergovernmental organizations and human rights organizations view the death penalty as one of the most pressing human rights issues of our time and take an active role in persuading countries to halt executions. The European Union and the Council of Europe have become increasingly vocal in their criticism of states that retain it. Over time, the international human rights norm that prohibits the death penalty has become stronger, more specific, and more subject to pressure from across national boundaries. Both the European Union and the Council of Europe have explicitly demanded abolition of the death penalty as a formal, non-negotiable condition of membership. North and South America would be practically death-penalty
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".