Summary:
After the legalization of conscientious objection in November 2018, the method to distinguish true conscientious objectors from people who just want to escape military service has been a subject of great controversy and dispute among South Koreans. But now prosecutors may have found the way to verify a conscientious objector: by checking their video game history and whether they have played violent games or not.
Ribbons with inscriptions calling for peace and reunification near the DMZ
Because South Korea and North Korea are technically still at war, military enlistment is mandatory. Therefore the recognition of conscientious objection has not been received by the S. Korean public and right-wing conservatives without opposition. In response to earlier rulings for objectors, the right-wing party of South Korea "put forward a bill to force objectors to perform 44 months -- double the usual length -- of service, including mine sweeping and other dangerous activities." If there is no clear way to root out men that falsely identify themselves as conscientious objectors, much harsher alternate services will be considered.
99% of previously imprisoned conscientious objectors were Jehovah's Witnesses
An official from a prosecutors office in Jeju comments, " 'We need to verify their genuine faith. So we need to examine their personal life' ". An aspect of personal life that these prosecutors look with apparent consideration is gaming history. Not only will they check regular attendance in religious services, but will also check if the "objector" has played games that include shooting. However, this method of distinguishment is not agreed upon by human rights activists. While many assert that pacifists should not be playing and/or should not have played violent games, human-rights activists counter with the claim that violent games are a different matter from the refusal to bear arms.
Reaction:
As a Korean-American, as a Jehovah's Witness, and as a person who has a dad that was imprisoned for being a conscientious objector in S. Korea, I feel somewhat glad but also somewhat frustrated with how things have turned out. My opinion on officials checking gaming history to verify an objector is not very solid, but I do not oppose it. I'm glad that all Jehovah's Witnesses previously imprisoned in jail are now free because I've heard of the abuse and discrimination that they face for refusing to enlist during their jail time and even when they are out. But it's nothing really to be joyful about if the alternate service is going to be 44 months of service and with the probability that it will be a dangerous activity. Also, the strong criticism from the media and South Koreans (especially men) will no doubt make this a period of great stress for conscientious objectors in general. It's a feat but not one that I am greatly happy about.
Connection:
This connects back to a lot of units that we've had in our history class. WWI, and WWII as there was compulsory military service during the two wars. But mainly the Cold War and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because the Cold War is greatly responsible for the division of North and South Korea and perhaps even S. Korea's requirement for men to serve one's country through mandatory military service. As the main topic discussed in this article was the refusal to enlist on a conscientious basis, Daniel and Yarko from "Promises" also came up in all the connections being made. Israel also has mandatory military service and once can be exempted on religious grounds. The conflict between North and South Korea is not as severe or as disheartening as the conflict between Israel and Palestine (and defensive forces are necessary for Israel because of terrorist attacks as well as other security concerns), but if Daniel and Yarko decided not to enlist, could that action in itself have impacted how Palestinians view Israelis at least in a small scale?
Questions:
1. Do you think checking an "objector's" gaming history is an effective way to distinguish bona fide objectors from people that are deceitfully trying to avoid military service?
2. What other methods do you think will be effective in resolving this issue?
3. What types of alternative services should be provided for conscientious objectors?
Additional Sources:
When it comes to why violent video games are addicting, psychologist Lennart Nacke stated that “If you look at it in terms of our evolution, most of us have office jobs. We’re in front of the computer all day. We don’t have to go out and fight a tiger or a bear to find our dinner” (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2515101/Why-person-violent-video-games-addictive-Psychologists-reveal-shoot-em-ups-make-feel-like-playing-God.html ). In addition, people play video games since they enjoy “being God” and making personal decisions that immediately affect the outcome of things. All these reasons for playing a video game does not directly correlate to liking violence or having the potential to join the army. In my opinion, video game history is too vague and general for a government to use as the deciding factor when it comes to enlisting. If I were the judge, I would use family history, medical history, and political opinions to decide if one person is trying to avoid the military or not. If someone has family hardships financially or have family members to take care of, they can choose to work instead of enlisting. However, I think conscientious objections should stay as a human right in Korea, as this leads them closer to democracy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Celine that reviewing gaming history is not at all a reliable or fair way to determine whether or not someone is deceitfully trying to get out of involvement with the army. As Celine said, people often play games, even violent ones, just for the experience of something different than real life without strings attached. I also don’t believe that experiences videogames create actually measure up to the real life adrenaline and horror of war, therefore, videogames cannot serve as proof that someone can actually handle life on the field. What concerns me more, though, is the recent bill passed that’s both lengthening the required enlistment as well as making it more dangerous for those who resist it initially. I feel that even those who are “deceitfully” trying to evade their required enlistments most likely have somewhat valid reasons to do so, like family or work, therefore by doubling the length of the enlistment as punishment seems just straight up cruel. Also, for those who really do have reasons to conscientiously object, who may still be found guilty because of the inaccuracy of the determining procedures, will then be forced to undergo an even greater punishment, which could literally tear apart and ruin lives. Rather than sending objectors straight into the most dangerous parts of the conflict, South Korea could instead try to find alternate ways for each person to serve that would keep them closest to whatever issue that has tied back from unlisting, therefore all are still serving their country, yet they are also being there for whatever live has thrown at them on a personal level.
DeleteThis is Claire Phillips^^ I don't know why it registered it as unknown because I was logged in, but now it won't let me delete the comment to repost it under my name- Sorry!!
DeleteI do not feel that checking someone's gaming history is a good way to tell what they believe in. There are so many things that go into forming opinions, especially ones on government policy such as conscientious objection. The government should be doing far more to validate their soldiers before inflicting punishments like elongated service time on them. Any time a country requires its citizens to enlist in the military, I believe they should seriously consider the point of view of their citizens, and I question whether or not South Korea is doing this. If they force uhappy people into war, they will not get the results they wish for, as proven during events such as those that occured in Russia during World War 1. Men or woman forced to fight under conditions they are not okay with often resort to desertion in extreme cases. Conscientious objection does not appear to be serious enough to cause desertions, but governments should always care for the opinions of their people.
ReplyDeleteAs a newly developed country, South Korea is acutely aware of the concerns surrounding technologies. As a country heavily invested in video games, the Korean government is correct to have some concerns surrounding it. However, this does not mean that it should judge people based on their video game tendencies. The types of games one plays is not necessarily reflective of a person’s character, and their fitness for military conscription. People play games for enjoyment, not necessarily because they have some violent tendencies that need to be expressed. This also devalues the other factors taken into account, such as family history and religion. People will criticize the Korean government for this frivolous factor of gaming habits, and overall devalue the process.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe South Korea should base people's violent tendencies and overall beliefs on whether or not they play violent video games. The reason video games are called that is for the simple fact that they are not real - they are games. People who play violent video games know if they kill someone in the game, it has no effect to the person they killed (maybe they get mad, but nothing more/physical). There are numerous reasons why someone would want to play violent video games, which will not usually include violent tendencies. This means that someone playing video games would not hurt a fly in real life; therefore, checking a person's gaming history should not be used to find if someone is trying to avoid military service. Instead, South Korea should making enlisting more rewarding to entice more people to join the military without conscription. However, if they do not do so, there definitely should be alternative punishments for conscientious objectors. They could be community service hours or forced work in other non-life threatening government positions. People should not be forced to risk their lives for something if they are unwilling to.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't play any video games but I do think that violent video games aren't good ways to determine what a person is like. Video games are just for fun. If people who played violent video games are indeed violent in real life, we would have a lot more violent people in this world. I don't have any specific solutions to check for people who are avoiding military service, but they could check for evidence for actual things that people have done to other people in real life. Maybe check criminal records? I find that the conscientious objectors usually do some kind of civilian service in place of military service. This site, https://www.sss.gov/consobj, has some examples that people have done instead of military service for the US, mostly jobs for taking care of others.
ReplyDeleteChecking an objectioner's gaming history is not a really accurate way to determine the legitimacy of their objection. Like Sophia said, there are many factors to form a person and their beliefs. Disregarding all of a person's character to just whether or not someone partakes in inconsequential virtual experiences just doesn't make sense. And also as Claire said, I also agree that just because you play violent video games does not mean that you are automatically capable to handle the horrors of war and the battlefield. Instead, a better judge for whether an objectorer's reasons are valid are looking into their past actions as well as their family, religious, political, and wellness statuses. While still not all the factors of what makes a person, it's certainly more than just an off glance at what kind of recreation a person partakes in. Alternative services provided to those who do successfully object should be things like community service towards aiding organizations or something related to the main reason they can't enlist in the military.
ReplyDeleteI believe that checking a person's gaming history is an inadequate way of checking is someone is a conscientious objector. The main reason I believe this is because violence in video games and using violence in real life are completely different things. And while I understand why one might try and make the connection between violence in a game and violence in real-life, frankly there is not enough evidence to jump to this conclusion. In fact, according to CNN, Christopher Ferguson, an associate professor and co-chairman of the Department of Psychology at Stetson University, goes so far as to suggest that violent video games may help reduce societal violence rather than increase it. This essentially means that the link that the South Korean government is trying to use against Jehovah's Witnesses is actually the opposite of what they thought it would be. If I was the South Korean government I would instead look to anything that a person typed, posted, or said. In a video game the violence is a part of the game and so it shouldn't be used against them. What a person sends, posts, or says however, is an expression of their own views and if it is threatening or violent then this could be used to disprove their claims at not wanting violence. Personally however, I believe that this would be a huge breach of privacy and for a bad cause. I think that compulsory military service is wrong in the first place. Even at war, you are no better than your enemy if you sacrifice the freedom of you own people, and that is what is done when a mandatory draft is put in place. So, I would not recommend any type of alternative services, but instead they could volunteer optionally to help in other ways. Also, another reason that I think using video games to determine people's personality is a bad idea is because in South Korea they have a large video game culture. This means that video games are more than just staying up until 12:00 playing factorio by yourself; video games are a big part of many people's lives in South Korea. In fact, the video game industry makes up a large share of South Korea’s GDP. The entire game market is estimated at approximately $5 billion dollars annually, or about $100 per resident, which is more than three times what Americans spend. What one can gather from these statistics is that video games are an aspect of every day life for South Koreans. They play the games the friends or even go to watch others play in stadiums built specifically for video games. In this type of environment who could avoid playing video games? A person playing a violent video game wouldn't be them saying they are okay with violence, it would simply be them fitting in to the culture around them. Therefore, looking at a person's video game history is inadequate and unproductive.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/health/video-games-and-violence/index.html
https://www.thoughtco.com/south-korea-computer-gaming-culture-1434484
I believe checking an "objector's" video game history is a start to identifying bona fide objectors to people who are trying to avoid military service but it is not solid as a determinant by itself to identify these people. I agree with Pritish that video games cannot completely signify whether a person is ready combat in actual war and actual violence. In this situation it is hard to tell what is the right solution to the conflict, however I believe a reduced military service instead of 44 months could be a good start to help slow the conflict to something more reasonable. There is a lot going in this situation and adding on requirements to complicate everything will make things worse. Other services given to conscientious objectors can be other civil services, military service is important and in trade for that should be another important position.
ReplyDeleteI believe that checking one's video game history to understand their beliefs and ideas is not a good way to do so. Today, many kids and adults enjoy violent video games. I personally do not like or play video games often, but I do understand their appeal. They are engaging and give the player a rush, but they do not define people's entire character. I think the government should turn towards more detailed or scientific ways to determine a person. It seems almost ridiculous to use video games to learn about a person, since so many kids enjoy them. The government should administer better ways to identify the objectors of service. Especially since the punishment is so severe and false accusations are unfortunately quite common. The choice of video games are composed of so many different things and I think it is really unjust to judge a crime off of them. Honestly, I don't think it makes sense to prosecute someone off of something that can have so many reasons behind it.
ReplyDeleteAlternative service options for conscentious objectors should be some sort of national duty like playing for the national marching band or helping build internal infrastructure or other non violent essential tasks for the nation. Korean soccer player Son Heung-min was able to avoid service by winning the asia games for the korean national team so conscientious objectors should be able to do things that boost the nations status linstead of military service as not everyone is suited for milltary service. Also it would be very unfair if soccer players are the only people who are offered alternatives so having other things than compulsory military service should be their. article on Heung-min Son:https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/45383556
ReplyDelete