Dozens of bills targeting knife attacks were proposed, but only two made it through the National Assembly

Bills Poured In After Each Attack, but Only Two Crossed the Threshold of the National Assembly

Of the many bills to strengthen punishments that poured into the National Assembly each time a random knife attack occurred, only two actually passed: the crime of public intimidation and the crime of carrying a weapon in public places. According to KBS reporting, a bill to strengthen stop-and-question powers was discarded, and the majority of other bills were left pending or discarded as well. Legislation created in the immediate aftermath of attacks, driven by public outrage and political pressure, ultimately failed to become institutionalized.

This pattern is nothing new. In the past as well, when violent crimes occurred, both ruling and opposition parties competed to propose bills toughening penalties. Yet such bills often ran into controversy at the Legislative and Judiciary Committee stage or were automatically discarded when the session ended. This is why the so-called "legislative show" phenomenon has been criticized: the number of bills introduced keeps rising while the passage rate remains low.

Key Provisions and Scope of the Two Passed Bills

The crime of public intimidation newly criminalizes the act of threatening people in places where crowds are present, thereby creating fear. The new offense was created because existing intimidation laws often required a complaint from an individual victim, making them ill-suited to terrorist-style threats targeting unspecified groups. The crime of carrying a weapon in public places punishes the act itself of possessing a weapon without legitimate reason in spaces accessible to the public. The intent is to enable investigation and arrest at the preparatory stage, before a weapon is actually brandished.

The two bills share common ground in terms of who they apply to. Both presuppose a spatial element—public places—and a target element—unspecified members of the public. However, since the weapons-possession offense punishes possession itself, drawing the line in practice between offenders and those who carry weapons as part of their occupation or for other lawful reasons is expected to become a key issue.

Why Was the Bill to Expand Stop-and-Question Powers Discarded?

The discarded bill to strengthen stop-and-question powers would have allowed police to verify identities and take other measures against individuals suspected of posing a terrorism risk in public places. However, critics argued its crime-prevention effect was unclear, and concerns were raised that it could excessively infringe on citizens' personal liberty and freedom of movement. Under the Criminal Procedure Act, compulsory investigations are in principle subject to warrants issued by judges, and expanding stop-and-question powers would have widened this exception, making legal controversy unavoidable.

Differences between the ruling and opposition parties were another stumbling block. Those prioritizing responses to violent crimes stressed the need for prevention, while from a human rights perspective, concerns were raised about arbitrary crackdowns and profiling. Civic groups likewise criticized that a broad expansion of police powers could instead deepen distrust and social conflict. The bill ultimately was never put to a vote and was discarded.

Balancing Legislative Overreach and Institutional Limits: Tasks Ahead

Experts have consistently pointed out the limits of reactive, incident-driven legislation. Raising sentences and creating new crimes during moments of heightened emotion has limited effect on deterring repeat offenses, and effectiveness falters if correction and rehabilitation systems are not strengthened alongside investigation and prosecution. Criminal policy research has repeatedly found that early identification and management of high-risk individuals and improving mental health response systems are more directly linked to crime prevention than simply raising punishment levels.

Looking at the legislative process ahead, pending bills to strengthen punishments must once again pass through the National Assembly's Legislative and Judiciary Committee review and a plenary vote. Given the routine practice of bills being automatically discarded at the end of an Assembly term, a substantial number will likely have their necessity re-examined from scratch. Once case law and court rulings accumulate under the two newly created offenses, they are expected to influence future discussions on revising criminal law. This is why calls are growing for a standing legislative review system that assesses effectiveness and human rights protections together, rather than legislation that reacts only when an incident occurs.