"It didn’t feel like this in the past, so why has it changed so drastically?"
This is a bittersweet question that arises when we confront the reality of judges hiding behind the cold text of the legal code, and legal professionals throwing in their resignation letters, thoroughly burned out inside a graveyard of paperwork. In our vague memories, the judges of yesteryear were different. There certainly seemed to exist "the romance of the judiciary" and solitary giants who agonized before the titanic absurdities of their eras, pushing forward with stubborn grit toward the reality of the truth and tears hidden beyond the paperwork.
What on earth, then, transformed that once-burning courtroom into a cold, sophisticated assembly-line factory? Is it because individual judges have become less righteous or more cowardly than before? No. It is the result of a colossal structural inflection point within the judiciary, co-authored by the distorted atmosphere of our society and third-rate politics.
The Judicialization of Politics: The Legal Code Turned Bulletproof Vest
In the politics of the past, when a conflict arose, politicians stayed up all night in the parliament to debate, fight, and somehow carve out a compromised conclusion. This was regarded as the natural obligation of elected officials who obtained votes and were delegated power by the populace.
Modern political grammar, however, has grown cowardly. Shifting the burden with the mindset of "I don’t want to take responsibility, so you courts decide," politicians began tossing all manner of sensitive social and political issues straight into the lap of the judiciary. In jurisprudence, this is called "the Judicialization of Politics." From disputes over election laws and internal tribal warfare within political parties to grand national economic policies, the political sphere fails to compromise on its own—unconditionally suing and indicting the opposition to dump the mess onto the courts.
Suddenly, judges were forcefully summoned into the ring of political arbiters. And that ring was brutal. The moment a judge handed down a solitary decision strictly by the book, the losing faction demonized the judge, doxxing them to initiate a witch-hunt. Consequently, judges learned a mechanism for survival: "To avoid taking a political beating, it is safest to hide thoroughly behind paperwork and mechanical formalism." In essence, cold verdicts that strip away the soul to calculate nothing but the literal text became their most reliable bulletproof vest.
From an Elite Sense of Mission to Sophisticated Professionals
The shift in how judges are appointed—moving away from the past Judicial Examination system to the post-law school framework—has completely shaken the values of legal professionals from the ground up.
In the old days, young talents in their late 20s or early 30s who had just graduated from the Judicial Research and Training Institute immediately became judges. Though they might have been slightly naive to the ways of the world, a weighty, "elite sense of mission and societal debt" from holding the judicial power of the state filled their hearts. This was the backdrop against which they exhibited the stubborn grit to pull all-nighters, sometimes recklessly, just to unearth the truth.
Today, however, the "Unification of the Legal Profession" (Beopjo-ilwonhwa) system—which selects judges from experienced legal practitioners—has taken root. Individuals become judges only after graduating from law school and spending years experiencing "the logic of capital" and "the art of strict paperwork warfare" at mega law firms or corporate legal departments.
Naturally, the occupation of a judge has come to be perceived not as a sublime calling, but as a sophisticated "professional career track" (a workplace) transitioned into after working as an attorney. A salaryman mindset has become mainstream, dictating that "rather than grinding down my own soul and getting hurt to rescue a factual reality, it is far more rational and professional to cleanly process paperwork according to the designated manual and punch out for the day." Where a sense of mission departed, professionalism smoothly took its place.
A Portrait of a Hyper-Distrustful Society Left Only with Lawsuits
Another fatal cause is that our society has become a "society of professional litigators," incomparable to the past.
In the old days, if neighbors quarreled or minor conflicts arose, they resolved them through dialogue or a village elder mediated the issue. Today, however, even the most trivial verbal arguments, noise between floors, or a single internet comment result in written indictments dragged to trial. This is a snapshot of a "hyper-distrustful society" that has lost the capacity for dialogue and compromise.
While the number of cases has exploded dozens of times over compared to the past, the number of judges has remained stagnant. Even if a judge desperately wishes to hold onto a single case to wipe away the tears of truth, hundreds of other litigants who have pulled waiting numbers shake them by the collar, demanding, "Why isn’t my trial happening?" Ultimately, a physical limitation exists where the system of the court itself had no choice but to transform into a mass-production conveyor belt, prioritizing "efficiency and speed" to hold back the flood of incoming cases.
The Atmosphere of the Era Has Shifted
The judiciary of the past was not always beautiful and righteous. During dictatorial regimes, it acted as the handmaiden of power, leaving shameful stains behind. Yet, at the very least, the courtrooms of that era possessed a romance and solitude that pondered the weight of the truth.
The reason the current judiciary has mutated into such a cold bureaucratic machine is not because the hearts of judges suddenly turned to ice. It is the inevitable byproduct co-authored by a cowardly political class that dumps all conflicts onto the courts, institutional shifts that turned judgeships into a safe corporate desk job, and the melancholy portrait of our society where dialogue has vanished and only lawsuits remain.
The question "Why has the law no interest in reality?" ultimately leads to a societal self-reflection: "Why did we confine the uncovering of all truth inside the file folders of that freezing courtroom?" The entity that killed the romance of the judiciary might well be none other than a guilty verdict issued by all of us, standing outside the courtroom doors with whips in hand, having abandoned the capacity to compromise.
Leave a Reply