Mother Han: The Dangers of Guilt by Position

History’s lessons from Socrates to the Reign of Terror show the dangers of justice by suspicion in Mother Han’s case

In an opinion column published by the South Korean daily Segye Ilbo on 12^th July 2026, religion correspondent Jeong Seong-su (정성수) argues that criminal justice must remain firmly anchored in demonstrable evidence rather than assumptions arising from a person’s position, prominence, or public influence. Writing in response to the special prosecutor’s recommendation that Family Federation President Hak Ja Han (한학자) receive a thirteen-year prison sentence, Jeong presents the case as an opportunity to reflect on broader principles of criminal law and the historical dangers that arise when legal systems become influenced by symbolism or political narratives instead of concrete proof.

See also Mother Han: Beyond One Trial – the Wider Stakes

See also New Law, New Standards for Religious Reporting

See also U.S. Officials Investigating Korean Arrests

See also Mother Han Trial Echoing Communist Show Trial

See also Religion as Campaign Weapons in Leadership Race

The column begins by observing that the recommended sentence is unusually severe by South Korean standards and has had a profound emotional impact not only on Hak Ja Han – also called Mother Han – herself but also on members of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification around the world.

Jeong notes that the movement‘s co-founder, Sun Myung Moon (문선명), likewise experienced imprisonment under the communist regime in North Korea decades earlier. Although Jeong emphasizes that the historical circumstances are entirely different, he argues that democratic legal systems distinguish themselves precisely by ensuring that controversial public or religious figures receive judgments based solely on evidence and legal reasoning rather than prejudice or public sentiment.

A central point of the article concerns the distinction between a prosecutor’s sentencing recommendation and a judicial verdict. Under South Korea’s legal system, prosecutors merely present their interpretation of the evidence and recommend an appropriate sentence if guilt is established. The court independently evaluates both the prosecution’s arguments and the defense’s responses before determining whether the charges have been proven beyond the applicable legal standard and, if so, what sentence is appropriate. Jeong therefore cautions readers against treating the prosecution’s request as though it were already a judicial finding.

The author further questions whether the prosecution has publicly demonstrated sufficient direct evidence to justify such a lengthy recommended sentence. According to the column, investigators spent roughly two years conducting an extensive investigation involving searches, financial inquiries, communications analysis, and numerous witness interviews. Yet Jeong argues that, based on what became public during the closing arguments, it remains unclear what specific evidence directly establishes that Mother Han personally instructed, coordinated, or knowingly participated in the alleged criminal acts involving political funding or gifts.

From this perspective, the article criticizes what it characterizes as an approach based primarily on organizational hierarchy rather than individual conduct. Jeong contends that modern criminal law is founded upon the principle that individuals are punished for actions they personally commit, authorize, or knowingly participate in – not simply because they occupy positions of authority. While leaders may under certain legal circumstances bear responsibility for the acts of subordinates, criminal liability generally requires proof connecting the accused to the alleged conduct. The column warns against allowing broad concepts such as “ultimate beneficiary” or “final decision-maker” to substitute for evidence demonstrating actual criminal involvement.

To illustrate this concern, Jeong turns to one of the most famous judicial proceedings in Western history: the trial of Socrates in Athens in 399 BCE. Socrates, the philosopher whose teachings profoundly shaped Western philosophy through his students, including Plato, was formally charged with impiety and with corrupting the city’s youth. Although the historical record – preserved primarily through Plato’s Apology – remains subject to scholarly interpretation, many historians regard the prosecution as reflecting broader political and cultural anxieties in Athens following the Peloponnesian War rather than solely the legal accusations themselves.

Athens had recently experienced military defeat, political instability, and periods of oligarchic rule involving several individuals who had once associated with Socrates. In that atmosphere, his habit of publicly questioning conventional wisdom and exposing weaknesses in accepted beliefs may have appeared threatening to many citizens. His accuser, Meletus, argued that Socrates undermined traditional religion and exerted a harmful influence upon young Athenians. Socrates defended himself vigorously but ultimately refused to abandon his philosophical mission or seek exile, and he was sentenced to death by drinking hemlock. Over subsequent centuries, his trial has frequently been interpreted as a cautionary example of how legal institutions may sometimes punish an individual’s perceived influence or symbolic significance rather than demonstrable unlawful conduct.

Jeong also invokes another historical example: the Law of Suspects enacted during the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror in 1793. Following the overthrow of the monarchy, revolutionary France faced foreign invasion, internal rebellion, and intense political conflict. Under these circumstances, revolutionary leaders adopted increasingly severe measures intended to protect the Republic. The Law of Suspects greatly expanded the categories of people who could be arrested, including those whose conduct, relationships, social background, or political attitudes merely aroused suspicion of insufficient loyalty to the Revolution.

Rather than requiring conventional standards of criminal proof, authorities often relied upon perceived intentions, reputation, or association. Combined with the operation of Revolutionary Tribunals, the law contributed to thousands of executions before the Terror eventually ended with the fall of Maximilien Robespierre in 1794. Historians frequently cite the episode as illustrating how fear, ideology, and emergency powers can weaken procedural safeguards within the justice system.

Drawing upon these historical parallels, Jeong argues that legal systems must resist allowing abstract political concepts or moral judgments to replace careful proof of individual criminal acts. His point is not that historical events are identical, but that history repeatedly demonstrates the importance of maintaining the distinction between suspicion and evidence, status and conduct, symbolism and legally provable facts.

The column concludes by acknowledging that Mother Han remains a controversial figure whose legacy will continue to be viewed very differently by supporters and critics alike. Regardless of those differing assessments, Jeong argues that courts should base their decisions exclusively on evidence presented according to established legal principles. He notes Mother Han‘s closing statement to the court, in which she maintained that she had devoted her life to promoting peace and the ideal of one human family, denied seeking political power through money, expressed regret that trusted associates had contributed to the present circumstances, and reaffirmed her intention to continue working for peace.

Ultimately, Jeong’s essay is less an attempt to determine Hak Ja Han’s guilt or innocence than a broader reflection on the philosophy of criminal justice. By invoking both the trial of Socrates and the Law of Suspects during the French Revolution, he argues that democratic legal systems best preserve their legitimacy when they judge individuals according to proven actions rather than reputation, prominence, or symbolic significance. Or as Jeong puts it,

“Throughout the history of law, whenever suspicion has been allowed to outweigh proof, the result has invariably been one of justice’s darkest chapters.”

See also Mother Han: Beyond One Trial – the Wider Stakes

See also New Law, New Standards for Religious Reporting

See also U.S. Officials Investigating Korean Arrests

See also Mother Han Trial Echoing Communist Show Trial

See also Religion as Campaign Weapons in Leadership Race

Text: Knut Holdhus, editor

Featured image above: Lady Justice with Socrates and a scene from the French Revolution. Illustration: ChatGPT, 13^th July 2026.

Related to the dangers of guilt by position: Religion Between Engagement and Withdrawal

And also related to the dangers of guilt by position: State Failure and Non-State Peace Projects

More, related to the dangers of guilt by position: Korea: Can Religion and Politics Be Disentangled?

Also related to the dangers of guilt by position: A 10-Minute Visit to Mother Han in Detention

Even more, related to the dangers of guilt by position: Denying Allegations: Hak Ja Han (82) in Inquiry

Also related to the dangers of guilt by position: SKorean Court’s Sharp Criticism of Prosecutors

And also related to the dangers of guilt by position: Detention: Harsh Cell Conditions Spark Outcry

More, related to the dangers of guilt by position: Ugly: Arrest Warrant Sought for Hak Ja Han (82)

And more, related to the dangers of guilt by position: Critics Warn of “Authoritarian Drift” in SKorea

Even more, related to the dangers of guilt by position: Court Decision to Prolong Detention Condemned

Still more, related to the dangers of guilt by position: Co-Founder, 82, Questioned 9 Hours by Prosecutors

Also related to the dangers of guilt by position: Democratic Party’s Assault on Family Federation

And even more, related to the dangers of guilt by position: Mother Han (82) in Poor Health in Damp, Cold Cell

And still more, related to the dangers of guilt by position: Korean Crisis: “True Democracy Must Serve Heaven”

And yet more, related to the dangers of guilt by position: Faith Leaders Protest State Assault on Religion

And more, related to the dangers of guilt by position: Trump Raises Alarm Over Church Raids in Korea

Even more, related to the dangers of guilt by position: Mike Pompeo Calls Probe of Co-Founder “Lawfare”

Still more, related to the dangers of guilt by position:  Korean Faith Crackdown: USA Urged to Confront It

Yet more, related to the dangers of guilt by position: Korean Bribery Scandal: Media Clears Federation

And also related to the dangers of guilt by position: Raids Blur Line Between Justice and Politics

More, related to the dangers of guilt by position: Heavy-Handed Raid on Sacred Sites Condemned