RESOLVING PRISON OVERCROWDING:THE ENLARGEMENT OF COMMUNITY-BASED TREATMENT IN KOREA
Joung Jun Lee*I. INTRODUCTION
A. Increase in Prison Population
Prison overcrowding is no longer a new issue in Korea. Since the economic crisis in 1997,
overcrowding has been substantially aggravated and today most correctional institutions areaccommodating a lot more offenders than their optimal capacity. This overcrowding has continued up
until now even though there may have been a little change in some correctional institutions.
Correctional facilities that house offenders in confinement are various. They include: correctional
institutions, juvenile correctional institutions, detention centers, branch of detention centers and social
protection centers. Correctional institutions, juvenile correctional institutions, detention centers andbranch of detention centers are designed to accommodate the convicted inmates who are sentenced toserve time in prisons or workhouses, and un-convicted inmates who are waiting trial. Social Protection
Centers house offenders prescribed by the “protection & supervision” order under the Social Protection
Act.
As of May 2002, there are 44 correctional facilities across the nation. This includes: 28 correctional
institutions (including 1 open correctional institution, 1 female correctional institution), 2 juvenile
correctional institutions, 8 detention centers and 4 branches of detention centers and 2 social protection
centers. As for the details of the prison population, table 1 shows the daily average number of inmatesin correctional facilities between 1991 and 2000.
Table 1. Daily Average Number of Inmates (between 1991 and 2000)
Legal
limit ofmaximum
numberDaily
averagenumberofinmates

1991

54,30055,123

1992

55,3001993

Year

Inmate categories
Un-convicted
Convicted

Sentenced
toworkhouse

Total

OffendersAccused30,17624,947

3,053

21,894

127

55,15931,38823,771

3,023

20,746219

55,30059,14532,452

26,693

3,167

23,526398

1994

55,80058,18833,752

24,436

2,892

21,544545

1995

55,80060,16632,89526,785

3,158

23,627486

1996

57,36059,762

32,84826,5193,272

23,247395

1997

57,66059,327

33,12325,825

2,253

23,572379

1998

56,50067,88335,12531,2382,930

28,308

1,520

1999

58,00068,08738,36428,6092,547

26,062

1,114

2000

58,00062,95937,04024,312

2,441

22,304

1,607* Correctional Supervisor,
Daejeon Correctional Institution,
Correction Bureau, Ministry of Justice, The Republic of Korea

294

121ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
As shown in the table 1, the average number of inmates in each facility outnumbered the legal
maximum number of inmates. Particularly, in the midst of the economic crisis of December 1998, theaverage number of inmates reached a record-breaking 74,400.
B. Reasons for Overcrowding in Correctional Facilities
1. The Practice of Incarceration before Conviction
The rate of imprisonment prior to conviction is much higher in Korea than that of other countries.
In the United States and Japan, incarcerating suspects is principally limited to those who are very
likely to conceal or remove evidence or are likely to flee from investigation. The number of un-convicted
inmates account for 10 to 20% among the total prison population in these countries. In Korea, the rateof incarcerated suspects accounted for 38.9% among the daily average number of inmates in 2000.
When the economic crisis struck the nation in 1998, the figure went up to 46%, that is 4 times
greater than that of other economically advanced countries. This practice resulted in overpopulation,
which had already been aggravated by increasing recidivism. The practice of imprisonment before
conviction along with the rising rate of repeat offenders contributes to the increasing workload of the
judiciary and police investigations, thereby resulting in deteriorating justice and correctional services.
2. All Offenders should be Incarcerated: the Public’s General Concept on Offenders
Prosecutorial and judicial policy cannot be separated from the citizens' notion of justice. Westerncountries provide offenders with extensive opportunities for their defence in the process of trial, such as
bail except in serious cases. However, most Koreans agree that offenders should be incarcerated in acustodial facility. This concept hampers the formation of a policy which ensures offenders have aneffective means of defence. Considering the fact that less than 30% of the incarcerated offenders are
actually convicted in the first trial in Korea, it is necessary to change the general notion that offenders
should serve time in a custodial facility.
3. Increase of Offences Stemming from the Economic Crisis
Since the economic crisis in 1998, the rate of robbery, fraud, theft and violence has risen sharply,
amid prevailing anxiety over economic uncertainty. The number of imprisoned offenders went up from62,594 in December 1997, in the wake of the economic crisis, to 73,659 in November 1998, an increase of
10,000 in less than a year (see table 2). During this period, all types of offences had increased. In
particular, the number of property crimes such as theft, embezzlement and fraud had increased morethan any other crimes. Consequently, incarcerating most of these money-related offenders caused
prison overcrowding.
C. Problems of Overcrowded Prisons
Article 1 (objective) of the Penal Administration Act in Korea specifies that the Penal
Administration Act is to separate offenders from society and to correct criminal attitudes andbehaviours. The correctional service promotes sound ethics and provides inmates with the skills
necessary to return to the community. The law also makes it clear that the objective of the custodialservices is to prepare them to return to society as law-abiding citizens and to help them break the moldof criminal behaviour.

295

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 61
Table 2. Monthly Average Number of Inmates during the
Economic Crisis in 1997 and 1998
Average number of inmates
Month
Total

Convicted

Un-convicted

End of Nov. 1997

64,81334,22530,588End of Dec. 1997

62,954

34,38028,574End of Jan. 1998

62,011

34,40427,607

End of Feb. 1998

62,08435,736

26,348End of Mar. 1998

63,39034,90728,483End of Apr. 1998

65,36735,84729,520End of May 1998

70,78736,87833,909End of Jun. 1998

70,48737,42933,058End of Jul. 1998

69,748

38,11531,633End of Aug. 1998

68,24636,39331,853End of Sept. 1998

70,16037,37432,786End of Oct. 1998

70,542

37,912

32,630End of Nov. 1998

73,65939,78833,871

However, in the present circumstances of overcrowding, an effective correctional service cannot be
expected. This overcrowding deteriorates the prison environment and consequently has brought morestress to inmates and prompted them to commit violence and suicide in custody. The shortage ofcorrectional facilities and officers, and the heavy workload have dampened the morale of officers whoare in the frontline of duty. The ratio of inmates per officer is over 5:1, whereas the ratio stands at 2:1 or
3:1 in North American and European countries. These statistics show that the workload of correctional
officers in Korea is overwhelming.
Conclusively, it is a great risk to take inmates out of the correctional services and leave them tofinish their sentences without giving them a chance to alter their criminal behaviour, because inmates
will return to our community in the end.
II. COMMUNITY-BASED TREATMENT AS NON-CUSTODIAL MEASURES IN THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS
A. Diversion in Policing and Prosecution
Contrary to traditional criminology, the labeling theory focuses on the social control structure withemphasis on the formation and progression of labeling and its negative results. The labeling theory
supports the principle of non-engagement in criminal policies that can be summed up by correctional(social learning) programmes within the community, humanization of social control through diversion
as well as a breakaway from pro-criminal attitudes. With the labeling theory, police can release
offenders though admonition or reprimand in case of slight offences. Juvenile offenders can be releasedon suspension of indictment with the condition of putting them on correctional plans. Adults can be put
into correctional planning, while they are still in society on the suspension of indictment. As a result,
this will reduce the number of offenders admitted to correctional facilities, and contribute to easing up
the problems with overpopulation in the correctional facilities.
In general, the diversion theory has the following concrete objectives: firstly, it recognizes theflexibility in police investigation and the prosecution system to allow them to address the concerns of296

121ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
offenders and society and to deal with crimes more effectively; secondly, it ensures offenders avoid theprosecution process and conviction; thirdly, it gives offenders the right motivation necessary to prevent
further criminal behaviour; fourthly, it redistributes resources in a way that the justice system canoperate at the optimal level; fifthly, it allows offenders to take responsibility for their behaviour andmove on with their lives; sixthly, it encourages offenders to have a job and support themselves and theirfamilies; lastly, offenders will be given an opportunity to compensate victims for the damage they havecaused.
The advantages of diversion are: firstly, it is a cost-effective way of dealing with offenders; secondly,
it reduces the possibility that offenders repeat their criminal behaviour, out of despair from being
nailed down with criminal records; thirdly, it lessens the workload of police and the justice system;
fourthly, it is more humane, as it provides both the offenders and victims with necessary and adequate
treatment; fifthly, it differentiates between less serious offenders and repeat offenders or felons whoneed to be incarcerated.
Various programmes based on the diversion theory have been developed and implemented toprevent offenders from being isolated from the community and to offer an alternative to the official
prosecution process. Despite all the benefits of the diversion theory, many programmes have produced
results that contravene the objectives of the theory.
The biggest problems of diversion-based programmes are: they have expanded the social control
network contrary to the initial goal of reducing it; the lack of punishment undermines the effectivenessof correctional services in terms of stopping crimes; some programmes have deprived offenders of theright to follow the legal procedures, especially receiving assistance from lawyers. The diversion
programmes have not been proven in terms of preventing repeated offences. The flaws of the current
diversion programmes can be mended, when offenders acknowledge their wrongdoing and pledge tofollow the diversion programmes laid out by the police and prosecution. The police, judges, prosecution
and the officials responsible for diversion programmes should stipulate the qualifications necessary foroffenders to be eligible for diversion programmes.
1. Diversion Programme Example: the Suspension of Indictment with the Condition of Correctional
Service
As society realizes that correctional programmes in correctional facilities do not prevent repeat
crimes nor help inmates adapt to the community, the justice system for juveniles introduced thesuspension of indictment with the condition of correctional service as an alternative to imprisonment.
The suspension of indictment with the condition of correctional service puts juvenile offenders under
the protection and control of designated supervisors as opposed to convicting them or admitting them tojuvenile institutions. Unlike the regular conditional suspension of indictment, this juvenile suspensionof indictment programme includes proactive counselling and support to prevent repeat offending and tohelp juveniles develop self-regulation and self-management skills. It is mainly for their attitudinal andbehavioural change. This system is designed to address the concerns that official prosecution ofjuveniles may exclude them from the community, cause lower self-esteem and hamper their efforts toreturn to society, which in effect, prompts juveniles to fall into the vicious circle of repeat offending.
As a core programme of the juvenile protection system led by the prosecution, the suspension ofindictment with a condition of correctional service takes the juveniles out of criminal behaviour at an
early stage and designates supervisors to provide juveniles with protection and guidance. It is forfacilitating juveniles' return to the community and achieving the ultimate goal of keeping juveniles
from further criminal behaviour. In other words, the prosecutor releases juveniles on suspension ofindictment with a condition that they should abide by the regulations during the release period and be
under the guidance of a designated supervisor. When a juvenile fulfills the requirements without
breaching the conditions of their suspension of indictment during the period, the prosecution drops the
charges.

297

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 61
The conditional suspension of indictment for juvenile offenders started in Gwangju in 1978 and by
1981 it expanded to the rest of the nation. Table 3 shows the annual number of juvenile offenders who
are under conditional suspension of indictment programmes.
Table 3. Annual Number of Juvenile Offenders Under
Conditional Suspension of Indictment (1991 - 2000)
Year

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Number

7,797

7,737

8,065

9,917

11,551

11,062

8,653

9,182

7,076

7,045

B. Avoiding Imposing Imprisonment
1. FineA fine is one of the ways to avoid imprisonment and help offenders stay in society. The Laws
pertaining to fines under Article 69 (2001) of the Criminal Act states:(i) The fine must be paid within 30 days of ruling,(ii) Offenders who don't pay the fine will be sent to a workhouse where they must work from one
day up to 3 years. However, fines as an alternative to incarceration defeats its purposes when
numbers of people are sent to the workhouse because they can't pay the fines. This number
actually skyrocketed after the economic crisis in 1998. This also increased the population ofincarcerated offenders.
In January 1997, correctional institutions had an average of 400 people at a workhouse, then thisnumber exponentially reached 3,083. The Ministry of Justice released 2,903 people from workhouses
with the fines suspended in December 1998 to relieve problems such as infringement upon humanrights, budget shortfalls and poor inmates’ treatment, which are caused by overpopulation incorrectional institutions. Then, the Ministry pardoned them in February 1999.
Some people criticized the pardon as unfair to the people who already paid the fines, while others
raised the question whether a one-time release can be a fundamental solution to prison overcrowding.
Table 4 indicates the daily average number of inmates in workhouses in each year compared to theaverage number of inmates in total. This table suggests that the number of inmates in the workhouses
went sharply up after the economic crisis. There have been some efforts to improve the system of fining
by introducing a deferred payment and a suspended sentence to the fining system. It is mainly to
reduce the number of offenders ending up in workhouses. It will also be desirable to put offenders intosocial work programmes instead of fining them.
Table 4. Daily Average Number of Inmates in Workhouses each Year
Compared to the Average Number of Inmates in Total (1991-2000)
Year

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Total inmate
number

55,123 55,159 59,145 58,188 60,166 59,762 59,327 67,883 68,087 63,472

The numberof inmates atwork incorrectional
institutions

127

219

398

545

486

395

379

1,520

1,114

1,607

2. The Suspended Sentence
The most common rulings as an alternative to incarceration by the court are the suspended
sentence without verdict and the suspended sentence with verdict. However, these options have alimited role in reducing the number of incarcerated inmates and keeping offenders in the community
because of the stringent requirements for these suspended sentences. The suspended sentence without

298

121ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
verdict puts minor offenders on suspended sentences for 2 years, preempting verdict. If the offenders on
suspended sentence without verdict spend 2 years without committing further offences, their offence
will be written off the police records, without sentencing.
By leaving offences out of the police records, the suspended sentence without verdict makes it easierfor the offenders to return to their communities and encourages them to not commit further crimes. The
suspended sentence without verdict is different from the suspended sentence with verdict in the waythat one puts sentencing on hold and the other delays implementing the sentences that have been
given.
The suspended sentence with verdict holds off the implementation of sentencing for a certain periodof time for offenders who commit very minor offences and do not need confinement in correctional
institutions. Once offenders serve the predefined time period, the verdict will be cancelled out, as if theverdict had never been made. The suspended sentence programmes resolve the problems of short-term
imprisonment without correctional plans, by fostering voluntary and proactive efforts of the offenders
to return to society.
The suspended sentence without verdict may be accompanied by 1 year of probation. It is granted
when offenders are in need of supervision to prevent further criminal behaviour. The suspended
sentence without verdict cannot be coupled with community service or community lesson order, while
the suspended sentence with verdict can be made in conjunction with probation, community service andcommunity lesson order. In the case of the suspended sentence with verdict, probation lasts as long as
the suspended sentence period lasts. The ruling court, however, may decide the probation period within
the suspended sentence period. The community service is for a period up to 500 hours and thecommunity lesson can be up to 200 hours.
C. Most Common Community-Based Treatment in Korea: Probation
1. History
Community correction has the same principles as treatment in society. Probation is a part oftreatment in society and also opposite to confinement in correctional facilities. It was first introduced in
Korea in 1963 when the Juvenile Act was amended. As the probation Act was enacted and the Juvenile
Act was completely amended in 1988, community service orders and attendance center orders
commenced as a supplement to the Probation Act. In 1995, the Probation Act was merged with the
Rehabilitation and Protection Law and this bore the “Act on Probation”. During the same year, theamendment on the Criminal Act paved a way for expanding the probation, community service orders
and attendance center orders to adult offenders.
The amended Criminal Act allowed probation to be granted to offenders who are under suspended
sentences without verdict, suspended sentences with verdict, and parole. In 1995, the “Act on
Probation” went through a phase of amendment to make probation, community service orders andattendance center orders available to adult offenders.
2. Probation in each Act(i) Probation in the Criminal Act (2001)
Firstly, probation for the suspended sentence without verdict
Article 59-2 (2001) of the Criminal Act stipulates that probation may accompany the suspended
sentence without verdict, when deemed necessary to prevent further criminal behaviour. The probation
may last as long as 1 year.
Secondly, the probation programme for the suspended sentence with verdict
Article 62-2 (2001) of the Criminal Act states that probation, community service orders andattendance center orders may be coupled with the suspended sentence with verdict (Clause 1).
Probation may be equal to or shorter than the suspended sentence with verdict in the period (Clause 2),
while community service orders and attendance center orders shall be completed within the suspended
sentence period, just as in the probation system in the United States.

299

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 61
Thirdly, parole with probation
Clause 2 of Article 73-2 (2001) in the Criminal Act mandates that offenders who are conditionallyparoled should be put under probation during the release period. However, probation can be excluded
when the authority in charge agree that probation is not necessary. This parole is very similar to that of
the United States in the way that it releases inmates before they finish their prison sentence.
(ii) Probation under the Sex Offender’s Punishment and Victim Protection Act (2001)
Article 16 (2001) in this Act makes it optional to put sex offenders on probation, when they receive
suspended sentences without verdict. Sex offenders on suspended sentences with verdict will be given
probation for a certain time within their suspended sentence period. Sex offenders who are paroled will
be placed under the probation programme until the parole period is over.
(iii) Probation in the Probation Act (1995)
Article 59 (1995) of the Probation Act specifies that community service orders should be given up to
500 hours and attendance center orders up to 200 hours for offenders on suspended sentences withverdict. The ruling court determines where the community service order should take place and what
are the subjects of the attendance center order. In other words, the Criminal Act introduced theprobation programme, and the Probation Act illustrates programme details in terms of content andextent. Therefore, these two laws constitute the backbone of probation.
(iv) Characteristics of the Probation Programme in Korea
Probation programmes in Korea are different from those of western countries. Firstly, in westerncountries, community service orders and attendance center orders are considered as an integral part ofthe probation programme, while in Korea, the community service order and attendance center order are
independent segments of the treatment in society aside from the probation programme. Secondly,
western countries practice community service orders and attendance center orders with both probationand suspended sentences regardless of their legal implication when deemed necessary. However, in
Korea, the probation, community service order and attendance center order are given to offenders who
are under suspended sentences with verdict. In cases of suspended sentences without verdict andparole only probation is granted.
3. The Relationship between Probation, Community Service Orders and Attendance Center Orders
The probation programme is divided into probation and parole. Parole and probation have different
origins and history, but they share the core concept of treating offenders in society. Because of thiscommonality, probation and parole are grouped into the probation programme. Instead of incarcerating
convicted offenders in correctional institutions or juvenile institutions, probation allows offenders tocarry on their lives in society for a certain period of time under the control, supervision and protectionof professionally trained officers. These probation officers help offenders to change their criminal
behaviour and consequently prevent further crimes. This is a way to ultimately protect society from
crime.
The court may order community service for convicted offenders. This order requires the offenders towork in the community without any payment for a certain period of time instead of being incarcerated.
The attendance center order is designed to provide courses or educational programmes for convicted
adults or juvenile offenders to assist them to change their criminal behaviour. Probation refers to alltreatment in society for offenders; community service orders and attendance center orders arecomponents of probation.
4. Probation, Community Service Orders and Attendance Center Orders
After the introduction of the probation programme, probation, community service orders andattendance center orders were expanded from juvenile to adult offenders in 1997. The number ofoffenders on probation reached as many as 140,000, calling for communities to assist the government inoffender management. The demand for community involvement has enhanced the role andresponsibility of the Crime Prevention Board as shown in Table 5.

300

121ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
Table 5. Offenders under Probation
Year
Number

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

The number
of offenders
starting the
programme

20,104 21,916 26,480 29,053 33,591 38,292 70,082 88,947 80,064 90,431

The number
of offenders
completingtheprogramme

17,001 19,430 21,704 27,758 31,385 37,924 54,546 80,224 80,378 90,826

Offenders on
the
17,025 19,511 24,287 25,582 27,788 28,156 43,692 52,415 52,101 51,706
programme
Year

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Total

3,800

4,789

4,549

6,441

7,128

9,173

23,694 40,501 37,194 40,082

Community
Service
Orders

2,460

3,355

3,278

4,671

5,284

7,418

22,030 37,506 33,391 33,580

AttendanceCenterOrders

1,340

1,434

1,217

1,770

1,880

1,755

1,664

2,995

1999

3,803

2000

6,502

D. Parole
If incarcerated inmates demonstrate good behaviour during their time, they can be released before
their statutory release date. Also, inmates are regarded as having completed their sentence unless therelease is cancelled or nullified. Parole is practiced as a response to the call to avoid unnecessary
incarceration, to help inmates find hope and to ensure inmates make a smooth transition back into
society. The objective of parole is to encourage offenders to take a hold of their lives in society, to reward
the offenders for their efforts to change their behaviour and attitude, to maintain order in thecorrectional institutions, to increase the effectiveness of overall correctional services and to save thecost needed for incarcerating inmates.
Parole in Korea has been used as a way of controlling the inmate population. Table 6 shows thecomparison between the number of parolees and the total inmate population from 1991 and 2000. In
1991 and 1993, the rate of parole ranged from 27% to 29%. Since 1994, it had stayed below 20%. In
1999, conditional releases surged to 35.3% and then in 2000, it edged up to 40.6%. The reason behindthe upsurge in parole was the sudden economic downturn resulting from the foreign currency crisis
that caused many to commit offences.
As a result, the whole criminal justice system including prosecutor’s offices, courts and thecorrection bureau have been trying to solve the problem of overcrowding. The correction bureau tried toconstruct several detention centers and repaired old facilities to enlarge the capacity. The prosecutors’
office reduced the number of inmates on remand by controlling indictment rates. The Ministry ofJustice broadened parole for many prisoners who showed good behaviour.
Despite the rising offender population, the Korean prosecution service has held on to the traditionof incarcerating offenders in the limited number of correctional institutions until the overpopulation in
the correctional institutions became a social issue. Without any serious consideration about the
overpopulation in the correctional institutions, the prosecution service may have made concessions and301

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 61
sought a stopgap measure by paroling inmates. In this case, parole cannot be a fundamental solution.
The justice system may be putting risks back into society by releasing inmates who have not been
sufficiently rehabilitated.
Sometimes, the justice system faces the situation where they have to re-incarcerate those on parole
because of re-offending. Some offenders will end up getting stuck in the cycle of recidivism. With theamendment of the Criminal Act in 1997, the probation service (parole supervision) began to cover adultoffenders and those on parole had to stay in programmes during their parole period. However, parole
may proceed without probation (parole supervision) if the parole committee decides that it isunnecessary.
Table 6. The Number of Parolees vs. Total Number Released (1991-2000)
Year

Number of parolees

Total number released

Percentage of parolees (%)

1991

6,479

22,734

28.5

1992

7,481

26,832

27.9

1993

6,151

22,749

27.0

1994

4,129

21,438

19.3

1995

2,516

22,614

11.1

1996

2,876

23,797

12.1

1997

2,614

20,014

13.1

1998

4,790

22,731

21.1

1999

8,559

24,242

35,8

2000

8,035

19,774

40.6

III. CONCLUSION
Overpopulation in correctional facilities has long been an issue in Korea. However, it was not untillate 1997 that this issue caught the public’s eye. At that time, the foreign currency crisis hit the nationand many people committed offences as a result of economic instability.
Correctional services have always been on the back burner of public policy as the central
government and the public have had no interest in it. As overpopulation has worsened by the foreign
currency crisis and it caught the attention of the public, the government legislated and enacted the
National Human Rights Board Act in May 2001. As more people are showing their interest in thehuman rights of incarcerated inmates, various efforts have been to resolve overpopulation incorrectional facilities.
The traditional method of expanding or building correctional facilities is not cost-effective. In
addition, correctional services isolated from society do not fulfill the policy objectives, that is, thesuccessful return of offenders to society as sound citizens. Keeping up with the trends of society, Korea
legislated with the Private Prison Act in 2001 to address the issues of high costs and low effectiveness.
As of now, the Korean Correction Bureau is going to contract out one prison to a private entity. This
private prison will be constructed and operated by the private contractor and the operating fees will be
paid by the government according to the relevant laws and the contract.
It is one of the major concerns of the public to change the criminal behaviour of offenders andremove the risks they pose to society, and to transform them into socially compatible individuals.
Because inmates are returned to the community and become our neighbours, it is the responsibility ofsociety to help them adjust back to life in the community, to provide training and to make them standon their own feet. In correctional facilities which are isolated from society, education, no matter how

302

121ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
good it is, will not be enough to prepare the inmates to settle back into society; because human beingsare products of their environment.
As correctional institutions have limits in terms of inmates’ housing and education, we should lookout for new options to more effectively administer correctional services with lower costs. There has been
discussion in Korea on electronic monitoring including those on the probation programme. Some people
who are in the field of justice are opposed to an electronic monitoring system, they believe thatelectronic shackles will turn society into a virtual prison by expanding the social control network.
They are concerned that the monitoring system will make human beings “guinea pigs.” However,electronic monitoring for thieves or chronic drunk drivers or other offenders, as opposed to conditional
release or parole for medical treatment, will have an actual impact of cutting down the incarceration
rate. There is some criticism that the electronic monitoring system ends up increasing the population in
the correctional services. However, this criticism decreases when tangible results are offered for people
along with other efforts to ease incarceration. Now, is the time to discuss the overcrowding issue, its
solutions and alternative methods to incarceration.
REFERENCES
The Ministry of Justice (2001). White Paper on Crime 2001.
Heo, Ju-uk (1998). Corrections, Iljo-gak.
The Ministry of Justice (2000). Correction Vol. No. 292 (5), pp. 12-41.
The Ministry of Justice (2001). Justice Annual Book 2001.
Korea Correctional Association (1996). Correction Research, Vol, No. 6.
The Ministry of Justice (1999). Protection, Volume No. 9.
Criminal Policy Research Institute (1999). The Status and Improvement of Probation, Community
Service and Hearing Order.
Criminal Policy Research Institute (1994). Research on Suspended Indictment on Condition of Social
Correctional Service.
The Ministry of Justice (1999). Protection, Volume No. 6.

303