President seeks to quell public fears of violent crimes

President Lee Jae Myung called on government agencies to respond to serious crime with the resolve of “declaring war.” He wants the government to reduce public fear after several recent attacks and make protecting citizens a central priority.

He specifically urged stronger measures against random attacks and better protection for people facing violence from intimate partners, stalkers, or family members. He also called for a comprehensive prevention system and stronger safeguards for victims who report danger. Police-issued smartwatches alone have not always provided adequate protection.

Lee directed officials to examine past cases closely and use what they learn to prevent similar violence. The meeting followed an Oct. 13 stabbing in Incheon that injured eight people and a Seoul arson attack that injured 19. His broader message was that protecting citizens’ lives and safety is the government’s most basic duty.

Intimate partner violence is violence or abuse committed by a current or former romantic partner. It differs from a random public attack because the alleged offender has a personal relationship with the victim. That relationship can create continuing danger, rather than a single unpredictable encounter with a stranger.

The article places intimate partner violence alongside threats from stalkers and family members. It reports cases in which people were killed by intimate partners even after receiving police-issued smartwatches. Those cases raised questions about whether existing protection measures were effective.

A random public attack can threaten people who have no connection to the attacker. Intimate partner violence may involve a known person who has already made threats or shown dangerous behavior. The article does not provide a formal legal definition, but Lee’s call for stronger protection shows why officials must address both relationship-based and random violence.

The attacks described in the article injured 27 people in total. The stabbing in Incheon injured eight people, while the arson attack on two office buildings in Seoul’s Gangnam-gu injured 19.

The stabbing occurred on Oct. 13. The arson attack involved two office buildings, but the article does not give a date for that incident. Together, the attacks illustrate the serious crimes that prompted Lee to convene a government-wide meeting at Cheong Wa Dae.

The figure of 27 counts injuries, not deaths or the number of attackers. The article gives no further breakdown of the victims’ conditions. Lee linked these incidents to growing public anxiety and argued that serious crime threatens both individual victims and society’s wider safety.

The article does not establish a precise technical reason why police-issued smartwatches failed to protect some people. It reports that people were killed by intimate partners despite wearing the devices, and that similar cases repeatedly involved inadequate protection after danger was reported.

This points to a larger protection problem rather than proving that the devices themselves malfunctioned. An alert device can signal danger, but protection also depends on what happens after a warning, including assessment, communication, and police action. Those details are not provided in the article.

Lee therefore called for a comprehensive system and a thorough review of past cases. The goal is to identify where protection broke down and prevent a recurrence. The article leaves the exact causes unresolved, but it clearly says the existing measures did not always keep vulnerable people safe.

The article places responsibility mainly on government agencies and police. Lee convened a government-wide meeting and urged officials to prevent serious crime, protect victims, and strengthen safeguards for people facing violence from partners, stalkers, or family members.

Police are especially important because they issue smartwatches and receive reports of danger. Officials are also expected to study past cases, identify failures, and develop measures that prevent similar crimes. The article does not name particular ministries, police units, courts, shelters, or social services.

This shared responsibility matters because serious crime can involve both public attacks and threats within personal relationships. The government must coordinate prevention, reporting, and protection rather than rely on one device or one agency. The article’s next step is a comprehensive system, but it does not specify its structure or assign named agencies to each task.

A protection system can combine several measures instead of depending on an emergency alert device alone. Risk assessments can identify escalating danger, while restraining orders can formally restrict contact. Shelters can provide a safer place, and rapid police response can address an immediate threat.

The key mechanism is layering. A report of danger should trigger an assessment, a suitable protection plan, and quick action when risk rises. Communication among police and support services can help ensure that warnings are not overlooked. These measures are established approaches to protecting people at risk, but the article does not describe their use in the cases mentioned.

Lee called for a comprehensive system after people reportedly failed to receive adequate protection. That call supports a broader response, though the article names no specific restraining-order, shelter, or response program. Officials are expected to study past cases and develop measures that prevent similar violence.

Preventing violence is difficult because the threats described come from very different sources. A stranger may carry out a random public attack, while an intimate partner, stalker, or family member may pose an ongoing personal danger. One prevention method cannot address every situation.

The article also shows a gap between reporting danger and receiving protection. Some people were killed by intimate partners despite wearing police-issued smartwatches. Lee said recurring cases involved people who failed to receive adequate protection after reporting danger, suggesting that warnings did not always produce effective safety measures.

That complexity is why Lee called for a comprehensive system and careful analysis of past cases. Officials need to understand how each type of threat developed and where protection failed. The article does not describe the final system, but it says preventing recurrence requires a more thorough government response.