30

Juvenile Justice: Episodes 2-12 (Series review)

After the sensationalized murder of the first episode, Juvenile Justice takes a slight step back to examine the societal influences that impact the more common and nuanced cases protected by the Juvenile Act. But at the center of every ruling is a judge who is vehemently biased against juvenile criminals.

 
EPISODES 2-12 REVIEW

Juvenile Justice was not what I expected. Initial trailers and promos set me up to believe it would be slightly humorous, and even though it was apparent from the first episode that was not the direction the show would take, certain elements — Eun-seok’s emphatic proclamation that she hates juvenile delinquents and the Truck of Doom — made me suspect it might address the inadequacies of the juvenile justice system through dark comedy. Instead, it was just dark.

The first episode, with all its shock and awe, mimics the way juvenile cases are generally perceived by the South Korean public. The more heinous crimes committed by minors are prominently featured and exploited by the press, and the public goes rabid, vilifying teens and demanding legal reformation.

The first episode did well to use a series of unreliable flashbacks to skew the audience’s perspective — mine included — to paint Seong-woo as the monster the public perceived him to be. While the truth behind the murder was no less gruesome, it did set the stage for our characters to discuss the press’s biased coverage of juvenile crimes and the ramifications of the Juvenile Act.

I wish I could say that this drama explores this issue further, but it doesn’t do a thorough job. Juvenile Justice is fairly episodic — dedicating approximately an episode and a half to each new case. While the setup gave the story the ability to cover a variety of crimes, it also hindered the narrative from delving deeply into many of the societal issues that lead to criminal acts. That said, the show didn’t completely ignore or shy away from them either.

In fact, the second case our judges face involves domestic abuse and directly calls attention to the reality that violent home lives lead to runaway teens, who resort to criminal activities — like theft and prostitution — as a means of survival. At the center of this case is SEO YU-RI (Shim Dal-gi), one of Tae-ju’s reformed teenagers, who flees her abusive father and is understandably frustrated that the law seems designed to punish her while protecting him.

The case is as much about Tae-ju as it is about Yu-ri, though. He was also abused by his father as a child, and he was sent to a rehabilitation center after defending himself. His past explains his softer stance towards the teens and his consistent faith that they can be reformed.

Unfortunately, even though Tae-ju is meant to serve as Eun-seok’s foil, he doesn’t do well to challenge her convictions. Instead, the drama depicts him as a champion of the children who gets consistently steamrolled by Eun-seok’s uncanny ability to find evidence to prove he’s being too naive.

Despite all Eun-seok’s declarations that she hates juvenile delinquents, though, she feels less anti-criminal and more pro-victim. That isn’t to say she’s not biased — because she definitely is — but I think it’s an important distinction to make.

Instead of looking for excuses to severely punish the children who end up in her courtroom — as one would expect from someone claiming she hates young criminals — she seems more driven to uncover the truth so she can issue an appropriate ruling and find closure for the victims and their families.

She’s also aware that juveniles are not inherently evil but are influenced by their environment. When reading over her files she pays particular attention to their background, highlighting details that would potentially contribute to their behavior. And when she’s given the opportunity to hold the parents accountable, she issues mandatory parenting classes and — in the case of Yu-ri’s abusive father — time in a probation facility.

As the story progresses, Tae-ju and Eun-seok tackle new cases, and we’re exposed to different societal contributors to juvenile delinquency, such as bullying, child abandonment, and the competitive education system and additional familial pressures that lead to academic dishonesty. Throughout these cases, the drama successfully depicts (most) of the teenagers as three dimensional, occasionally evoking both disgust and empathy for the same characters.

But there are many scenes that are downright uncomfortable and triggering to watch, so if you are adverse to blood and gore, child abuse, or rape, I highly recommend skipping Juvenile Justice. Given that many of these cases are loosely inspired by true events, it’s debatable whether these scenes are gratuitous or a mirror being held up to call attention to the atrocities that society would rather sweep under the rug than address and fix.

Everything culminates in a final case connected to Eun-seok’s past. Five years ago, two young boys (approximately 10 years old) threw a brick off the roof of a building and killed Eun-seok’s young son. Given the two boys were extremely young and first-time offenders — and presumably lacking in malicious intent, which the drama fails to mention — they were let go with a light warning.

Their non-existent punishment upset Eun-seok, as she believed the free pass would cause the boys to grow up thinking their actions were devoid of consequences. At the very least, she felt they should learn that others were harmed by their behavior. But as the show has shown — and Eun-seok is keenly aware — parents and society often fail children. They don’t always teach children right from wrong, and so Eun-seok seems to think it is her job to pick up the slack and show these kids that their actions harm others.

The two boys who threw the brick that killed her son grew up to be rapists and the masterminds behind a pornography ring. Eun-seok fails to recuse herself due to her conflict of interest with the case, so when her connection is revealed, she’s forcibly removed as the presiding judge and formally reprimanded.

Even so, she refuses to leave the investigation alone, and her vigilante sleuthing is ultimately the break the case needs to prove that four — not three — boys were involved. While I’m glad that the rapists were appropriately punished, I had two problems with this last case.

First, it barely addressed the issue of victim blaming, which seems like a huge oversight given Eun-seok is a staunch advocate for victims. I guess the story didn’t have enough time to focus on Eun-seok’s backstory and scratch beneath the surface of this major societal problem, but I would have preferred a little more than a scene in which the victim sadly reveals that her best friend’s mom will no longer let them hang out.

Second, I wish the death of Eun-seok’s son had remained solely a part of her backstory and characterization. I can follow Eun-seok’s logic and sympathize with the emotions that lead to her biases, but her son’s death felt more like a tragic accident, not a sign that those boys were on the path to becoming sociopaths. So, by connecting the two cases, it was clear that the story was pushing the idea that Eun-seok was justified in believing unpunished crimes create minors who assume that they are impervious to the law.

If that’s the stance the narrative wanted to take, so be it, but it seems to directly contradict the ending, which shows Eun-seok at her disciplinary hearing before the Supreme Court. Here, she acknowledges that she has biases against juvenile delinquents, but promises to not let them affect her judgment on future cases. The conclusion would suggest that she’s grown a bit softer and has a better understanding of when and where her biases might influence her judgment.

But when did she learn this lesson? Certainly not when her son’s “killers” were on trial for rape and all signs pointed to her theory — that light sentencing is a major contributor to repeat juvenile offenders — being correct. And given that Seong-woo, the boy from the murder trial in the first episode appears in her courtroom again in the last shot, face covered in tattoos, one would assume that’s also a sign that Eun-seok’s biases are somehow justified and grounded in truth.

So what exactly is Juvenile Justice trying to say about juvenile crimes in South Korea? Honestly, I’m not sure. This drama has me so emotionally drained that it’s hard for me to either form an opinion or muster the brain power needed to comprehend its intended message.

One would hope its goal was to expose major societal flaws that contribute to juvenile delinquency in an effort to enact a positive change, but I’m not sure it was successful or pointed fingers in the appropriate directions. One thing I am certain about, though, is that this drama wanted to shock its audience, both with its mature content and with a main character who’s expected to be unbiased, but whose actions are deeply impacted by her anger and grief.

 
RELATED POSTS

Tags: , , , ,

30

Required fields are marked *

Thank you for the recap.
I was waiting for everybody comments on the ending.
My guess abt the ending is that we are in an alternative reality - what would have happened if the kid wasn't condemn?
Or we are in the present reality, what happens after receiving a harsh punishment?
Or the alternate meaning could be :since what happens to the culprits is something that is between their choice and the support they receive: "the system should be kind to victims and always place them in the center of it"

I have no clue honestly.
Why was the ending that weird ?!
-----
I agreed with her way : everybody should understand their mistake since at the end of this mistake there is someone who was hurt by it and receive a punishment - a justified and "proportionate" punishment (not too soft but not too harsh, a middle ground + education(parents, children, find purpose etc.)

2
0
reply

Required fields are marked *

I enjoyed this so much I couldn't stop watching it. I also must say first up, I'd be one of those who err on the side of seeing the factors that have contributed to an individual's wrong-doing and weigh the excuses in their favour. But this drama made me rethink my bias. With each case there were always people to make excuses for the minors. No one ever explains or shows the consequences of their actions to them. The role of the Court is to make that clear, to draw the line, and when the law is broken, to be immutable. The Court upholds the law in the face of the slippery slope of excuses that allow young people to do things that damage themselves and others without any sense of responsibility. Teaching children to bear the consequences of their actions is one of the most important things a parent can do, and if the parent fails in this, then the Court must follow through. This for me was the heart of this drama. Everything else was extra. We saw a parade of adults who failed to do this for various reasons. The Court officials in particular had to face their breaking points: the judge who was prepared to influence the outcome of a trial for his personal ambition, the associate who saw himself in his charges because of his own experience of being brutalised, the vengeful judge whose life had been destroyed. (Btw I don't think the brick dropping was all that accidental). Each was flawed and yet these are the people that the integrity of the Court relies on. They hold the line and must be clear about the law and the values it preserves, especially when adults have had their values eroded for all sorts of reasons. It made me think that my so-called compassion was wishy washy and more than that, dangerous. It was brilliant and I hope it gets the acclaim it deserves.

6
1
reply

Required fields are marked *

It isn't wishy-washy. Remember that after exacting punishment, we pull the child back with the left hand. Your compassion is what enables doing both at the same time, finding balance so they do not overcompensate for the crimes they've committed, even when those crimes are shocking.

1
reply

Required fields are marked *

I like the new perspective I got from this drama that juvenile case is about speed. I never thought about it that way before. Although it is not completely true (like anything else that can't be completely black and white), the statement is not so wrong either.
I think the foundation why Juvenile perpetrators get lesser punishment than the adult ones because we want to believe that children and teenagers are more malleable with right rehabilitation and learning compared to adults. Because they are still in the process of growing up. When they stumbled upon such 'criminal' case in their life, the process to solve or make conclusion of the said case puts stop in the child's life also the growing up and learning process. We can't do that for too long, the stop. It will effect the children's life which are still long. So indeed the speed is matter. Having a conclusion is better than with no conclusion at all. We can't be 100 percent sure about the judgement we are giving them is right. But even so, in the case of giving them false judgement (much lighter punishment, i.e. no criminal record), there is still a chance like 0.00009% our judgment can make positive impact to the child's life and she or he can grow up into better and much responsible adult.
Even there is only 1 from 100 Juvenile delinquent cases can turn out into Judge Cha case, it is still worth considering.

2
0
reply

Required fields are marked *

Juvenile Justice seems to have its heart in the right place but its mind stuck about 10 years in the past. For a Netflix show, it’s weirdly retrograde, almost makjang, in its execution. Why does every single case have to be so personal for at least one of the four main judges? What’s with the preposterous web of coincidences linking all four of them? The finale was particularly silly. How does Eun-seok recover so quickly from her injuries? Why don’t the cops just arrest the boy for assaulting her? Why do the two brick-tossers have to descend to the lowest depths of mua-ha-ha-type depravity?

Some very good points were made, but only in passing: that the system depends on individual sacrifices, like that of Pureum’s Ms Oh; that each case needs far more time and effort than is currently allocated; that very young children who commit crimes require special treatment; etc. While Kim Hye-soo’s mannered acting is an acquired taste, Lee Sung-min, Kim Moo-yeol and Lee Jung-eun are luxury casting and I feel deserve better than this.

3
11
reply

Required fields are marked *

I'm interested to know your view of it being stuck in the past. I know nothing of this field, but I'm prepared to guess that opinions on the best and most appropriate care of minors is a fiercely contested field.

1
10
reply

Required fields are marked *

I meant the style or form of the show, the way the content is presented, rather than the ideas themselves. As I said, I think its heart is in the right place, and I agree with most of its conclusions, but I wish it had reached those conclusions using more subtle and detailed methods instead of those archaic K-drama tropes like coincidences, vengeance, etc.

3
9
reply

Required fields are marked *

I see. For sure, the drama tropes ... I did find her story and the loss of the child overly contrived. It was not consistent with her character that she did not recuse herself immediately.
But it served to show her weakness. Without it, she would have been an impossible character. Also because it personalised the story of responsibility for one's actions, I felt we lost some of the significance of what had been shown in the earlier stories.IBut in the end it showed no one was exempt from responsibility. She even says that at the end.

3
1
reply

Required fields are marked *

For me, it's precisely this weakness of hers that makes her an impossible character. Firstly, it seems a bit weird that someone who publicly proclaims her hatred of juvenile offenders is appointed to that post (unless it is a sop to those demanding that the Juvenile Act be repealed). Secondly, and more seriously, didn't anyone notice that she herself is a victim of the kind of criminals that she's supposed to judge? I was moved by her near-superhuman efforts to be objective during the final case, but she should never have been allowed anywhere near the juvenile courts.

1

Her avowed hatred did not stop her from finding the truth and ensuring that those who came before her in Court received protection, as well as faced up to the legal consequences for their actions. I thought she was exactly what a judge should be. Her compassion was evident from the beginning. That was the eye opener for me.

0
3
reply

Required fields are marked *

Eun-seok is a thoroughly admirable woman, and in some ways better at handling young people than Cha Tae-joo. Nevertheless, putting her in that position is incredibly risky. By ep10 everyone knows that her attitude towards juvenile offenders is beyond reproach. But even the audience didn't know that in ep1, let alone the people who had appointed her to that post. How would they know for certain that she wouldn't be swayed by her hatred or her terrible loss? Even worse, what implications might there be for her young charges? It's downright unethical to bet on her rectitude with their lives. After all, it's not as if she is the only person in South Korea who can do that job well.

2

Sorry for going on and on about this, but the more I think about it, the dodgier it seems. It has just occurred to me that, should Eun-seok's loss become widely known (and that seems a distinct possibility, with that ex-mother-in-law going around screaming about flying bricks), that lawyer in the final case wouldn't be the only one demanding that the sentences she has passed be overturned.

1

I guess it's really up to the integrity of the judge. Many fail spectacularly in that respect and they remain as judges.

0

But what judges get suspended for not liking/hating/detesting the accused? A good judge is esteemed by their rulings, so attitude is irrelevant if the ruling applies or interprets the law in a considered way.

I don't mind your argument at all. I appreciate that it makes me consider another valid point of view.

0
1
reply

Required fields are marked *

I agree that there are lots of terrible judges who stay put for years and years. But one reason why they do is precisely because their rulings are deemed to apply even though they are shaped by problematic attitudes (e.g. the 6 months Aaron Persky gave Brock Turner, or the decidedly mechanical slap on the wrist Na Geum-hee gave the brick-tossers). We also tolerate the inconsistencies among the thousands of cases that go through the courts every month (e.g. BAME offenders possibly being more likely to get heavier sentences for drug offences in England and Wales; kids in the show’s universe getting heavier or lighter sentences depending on whether they meet the likes of Judge Max).

But just because these things happen - are in fact often unavoidable, as things stand - doesn’t mean that efforts shouldn’t be made to mitigate them. Eun-seok’s case is a particularly glaring one, with obvious implications that no one should have overlooked. As I mentioned, why would anyone risk appointing a person whose very specific circumstances (not just family background, values, etc, but profound loss and trauma through juvenile crime) might affect her judgement; be used as evidence for alleged bias by any lawyer who wishes to challenge her rulings; and maybe result in the overturning of perfectly fair sentences? Even jurors who are victims of similar crimes are regarded warily and often excluded, let alone judges.

0

This interview with Kim Hye-so reveals her attitude to her character and what she was trying to portray. It supports my initial impression of her character: that her words about hating juvenile offenders were at odds with her actions. I always felt her quest for the truth came out of a desire to be fair, while at the same time, she ensured that everyone take responsibility for their actions.

https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=325011

0
reply

Required fields are marked *

Personally, I was disapointed by this drama. The actors were great, no doubt about this.

But it wasn't about Juvenile Justice, it was about the judges. I found that the victims, the perpetrors and the parents were more like some plot devices for the judge's stories. I never was really touched by the stories, they were awful though. Even Cha Tae-Ju and Sim Eun-Seok's personal stories were adressed in a way that I couldn't immerse myself and feel for them.

This drama scratched the surface of the theme without taking risks.

2
7
reply

Required fields are marked *

I'm not sure about that. There was so much about the children and their families. I thought it was representative of all sections of society that were involved in the lives of the children. It was lurid, but probably not that removed from actual cases.

1
4
reply

Required fields are marked *

For the first story, the boy had a mental illness how did it play a role for the family? Where was his father? What his doctor has to say about it? How the mother handled it? Paid for his meds? How was he in class? Did his teachers have difficulties with him? We didn't really see his background, he was just crazy and villain.

For the parents, they didn't care about their children the most of the time. But why? Just ecause they were bad parents.

I don't doubt about the cases, but the way they were adressed wasn't really interesting for me.

2
3
reply

Required fields are marked *

I guess there's only so much you can fit in and it's important to focus on what is considered essential to the narrative and the point you want to make. For me, he was important as someone manipulated by an older perpetrator. All of those other details would have been red herrings. It was so easy to assume his mental illness accounted for his assumed crime. Just shows how easy it is to button hole kids when so much more was going on. All the rest could exist but not be important to the details selected for the narrative. Turned out he wasn't at all crazy or a villian. He was manipulatedby her..

3
reply

Required fields are marked *

Personally, I think the show either needed more episodes or fewer cases. As you said, each case raises so many issues, which were either not addressed or kind of hand-waved. And while I agree that juvenile offenders need to understand the consequences of their crimes, I feel that the brick-tossers being such unconscionable villains has the effect of highlighting and even justifying Eun-seok's vengefulness, and obscuring her objectivity.

3
1
reply

Required fields are marked *

Yep. It was easy to hate the brick throwers / rapists and thereby excuse her. Thing was she was wrong and she knew she was. She ended up being a wounded healer, but not an exonnerated one. I think the fact she did not recuse herself immediately was a weakness. I doubt she'd have not done that, but we wouldn't have had a story otherwise.

3

I think the drama was intended to
see it from the judge point of view. What I get or I think what the writer tries to tell is even the most impartial judge, his or her personal believe/past/values will always influenced her judgement. But it doesn't mean she is a bad judge, it only means she is human. Human can only try so much.
If the story is told from the juvenile perpetrator's point of view perhaps, it will be better in addressing issue of Juvenile delinquency. I dont know maybe like Extracurricular did.

2
1
reply

Required fields are marked *

Every show about judges explains how hard is it to stay impartial. It's normal, they're human after all. There is nothing original about this fact in this show.

Either they really adressed the Judge life and went more in their past, their daily life, the number of cases, etc. either they focused on a case from the point of view of the judge but adressing the whole environment of the kid.

In this case, I got the impression, they tried to do both but without succeding.

1
reply

Required fields are marked *

I am only half way through the drama, but it is very gripping. So many wonderful shades of grey! It became better and better. The child murder case at the beginning was not so intriguing, because such gruesome cases are extremely rare and really only sad in every way.

More interesting are the badly behaved, unruly and unlikeable teenagers who are perpetrators and victims at the same time (not sure why they are all only girls so far). I think this is the main problem for juvenile crime. Best so far is the Pureum case with the manipulative group of girls. How the judges still fall into the trap, only partly recognizing that they are being played and being smug at first, thinking that they are so smart. And how the image of the woman running the home is changing from a mean and greedy culprit to somebody who sacrifices almost everything to help these girls. Well done.

The inevitable corruption trope is probably next. Not so keen on that.

2
3
reply

Required fields are marked *

The Pureum case deserves an entire show to itself. There are so many aspects of it that I would love to see fleshed out - the locals' resistance to the home, the girls' community work, Ms Oh's daughters' daily interactions with the girls, and the personal cost of such a vocation.

2
1
reply

Required fields are marked *

Yes, it had so many layers.

1
reply

Required fields are marked *

The child murder case is a real case which happened in Korea in year 2017. Its so scary to even think that this really happened.

0
reply

Required fields are marked *

First of all let me start saying that Kim Hye Soo is a powerhouse . What engaging performance of her's and all the actors in this drama. Great acting even the kids.

Coming to the drama, it was quite good. The court scenes kept me on edge every time. It really focused on the quote "it takes a village to raise a child"
Its quite hard to believe that such gruesome murders and crime are committed by the kids and its quite scary that almost all the cases in depicted in this drama is true.

0
0
reply

Required fields are marked *

The MC’s character seems more suited to be a lawyer than a judge. The fact that she investigates all these cases personally, forms an opinion before the trial, is in contact with all the people who are involved in these cases, seems very strange. Why is a trial required when the judge has already formed an opinion and is ready to give her judgement? It would’ve been better if she was either cast as a lawyer or if she was a judge and the entire investigation was shown through the lens of lawyers presenting the case. Her stance is that she detests juvenile criminals but I don’t think that adds anything to the show, all it did was make her look cruel and emotionless, understanding someone’s helpless situation and pardoning them are very different. I don’t think any other judge in that series, would willing support a juvenile who was accused of murder, just because he’s/she’s underage. So I don’t see the point of MC being unnecessarily harsh to even the underage victims just because they had a criminal record.

0
0
reply

Required fields are marked *