Between the Rule of Law and Humanitarianism: Why ManHee Lee Should Not Be Detained
 |
| In-seop Maeng, former National Assembly and Presidential Office correspondent |
In-seop Maeng, former National Assembly and Presidential Office correspondent, recently expressed his stance on the continued detention of Shincheonji Chairman ManHee Lee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------The rule of law demands more than the formal application of legal procedures. It demands that the power of the state be exercised with necessity, restraint, and respect for human dignity.
The Criminal Procedure Act of the Republic of Korea makes this principle explicit: “investigation of a suspect shall, in principle, be conducted without detention” (Article 198, Paragraph 1). The Constitution likewise guarantees the presumption of innocence until a final guilty verdict is rendered (Article 27, Paragraph 4).
These protections exist for a reason. Liberty is the rule; detention is the exception. Under the Criminal Procedure Act, detention requires specific grounds, including the absence of a fixed residence, a risk of destroying evidence, or a risk of flight (Articles 70 and 201).
Those requirements should not be treated as technicalities. They are safeguards against unnecessary deprivation of liberty.
That is why the detention of Chairman ManHee Lee, at 96 years of age, deserves the most rigorous scrutiny.
Lee is a Korean War veteran who has spent decades publicly promoting peace in Korea and internationally. His activities have included the Mindanao Peace Treaty in the Philippines, the Declaration of Peace and Cessation of War (DPCW), the World Peace Tour, and campaigns encouraging plasma and blood donations during the COVID-19 pandemic.
None of these achievements places anyone above the law. But neither should they be dismissed as irrelevant when determining whether detention is necessary. An exceptionally advanced age, established circumstances, public activities, and the absence of a demonstrated risk of flight or evidence destruction are all factors that warrant careful consideration.
At 96, detention carries consequences far beyond the restriction of physical liberty. It can affect health, access to counsel, preparation for trial, and the practical ability to exercise the right of defence. When a less restrictive alternative can adequately protect the integrity of the proceedings, subjecting an exceptionally elderly person to detention risks turning an exceptional measure into an unnecessarily severe one.
This is precisely where humanitarianism and the rule of law converge.
Human rights principles increasingly recognise that detention must be proportionate to its purpose and must take account of an individual's age and health. Across different legal systems, mechanisms such as bail, alternative measures, compassionate release, and sentence modification reflect a fundamental proposition: justice does not require the state to disregard human dignity.
Nor can comparisons with elderly defendants prosecuted for Nazi-era atrocities settle the issue. Those cases involved allegations concerning genocide, crimes against humanity, and other grave historical crimes. Their extraordinary nature cannot provide a universal justification for detaining every elderly defendant in every circumstance.
The proper question is far simpler: Are the legal grounds for detention actually present, and is detention genuinely necessary?
If the answer is no, detention should not be imposed merely because it is available.
Some will argue that Lee's public contributions or status as a veteran should have no bearing on his treatment under the law. That concern deserves respect. Equality before the law means that public prominence cannot purchase immunity.
But the alternative to preferential treatment is not indiscriminate detention.
If Korean law establishes non-custodial investigation as the principle, then allowing a 96-year-old defendant to remain free while proceedings continue is not a special privilege. It is the ordinary legal position unless the statutory grounds for detention are demonstrated.
Indeed, the greater threat to the rule of law would be to reverse this principle—to treat detention as the starting point and liberty as the exception.
This is why the issue extends beyond Chairman ManHee Lee himself. It concerns what society expects from its justice system when confronted with an exceptionally elderly defendant. Do we want a system that exercises every available power simply because it can, or one that exercises state power only when it is demonstrably necessary?
A mature democracy should choose the latter.
Justice must protect the integrity of legal proceedings, but it must also protect human dignity. The two principles are not enemies. They are mutually reinforcing. The stronger the rule of law, the greater the responsibility to ensure that detention is used only when the law genuinely requires it.
For a 96-year-old Korean War veteran, this principle should be especially clear. If the statutory grounds for detention have not been established, there is no compelling reason to transform the judicial process into an unnecessary deprivation of liberty.
The ideals of reconciliation, forgiveness, and peace associated with former President Dae-jung Kim should likewise remind us that justice need not be synonymous with severity. The dignity of the individual should remain intact even when the state exercises its authority.
A trial without detention would not mean abandoning accountability. It would not place ManHee Lee above the law. It would allow the law to take its course while respecting the presumption of innocence, the statutory preference for non-custodial investigation, proportionality, and human dignity.
The question is therefore not whether ManHee Lee should receive special treatment. The question is whether the law's own preference for liberty should be respected.
When detention is meant to be the exception, making an exception of liberty is itself a departure from the rule of law.
For the sake of justice, human dignity, and the integrity of the legal system, the appropriate path is clear: let the trial proceed without detention.
Source: vo.la/AhFDqKP
0 comments