Evaluating the Validity of Korean Immigrants’ Cultural and Religious Defense Claims in the U.S. Criminal Court

While religious values and different cultures should be respected, if the defense claims of custom and religion itself bring the violence and stereotyping effect on the subordinated group within the racial minorities, then the defendant’s manipulative use of cultural defense should be barred by the court. As will be examined further in Chong Sun’s case, some alleged cultural defense could in fact, have arisen from other types of social forces such as poverty, discrimination, and mistreatment. These socially and economically disadvantaged minority groups should be further evaluated with more attention to comprehend the cultural elements that may have contributed to the minorities’ “criminal or abnormal social” behaviors in the mainstream society. As discussed in the second case of Kyung Jae Chung, some seemingly cultural defense cases are wrongfully evaluated in the court. While the case itself was about pseudo-religion, the court wrongfully considered the case as cultural defense claims. The Daubert standard gave discretion to judges, as a gate-keeper, to preclude the junk science, and thus, the judges in cultural defense cases may consider applying certain prong tests in sorting out the proper evidence of cultural defense claims. While the author strongly encourages the use of cultural defense and utilization of relevant social science expert testimony in the court, it does not mean that they could arbitrarily use the valuable tool as a justification or excuse for the violent actions against the culturally preempted groups. No custom, tradition, cultural values, religious belief can justify depriving a human being of their universal human rights. Thus, to make the admissibility process more efficient and reliable, judge should consider the suggested listed prong factors in allowing the cultural evidence.