Faith and Fortitude: 10-Year Assessment of Recidivism at a New Church-Based Prison in South Korea

• Published date: 01 September 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X221086552
• Author: Seungmug (Zech) Lee,Robert D. McCrie
• Date: 01 September 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X221086552

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2023, Vol. 67(12) 1163 –1192

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X221086552

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Faith and Fortitude: 10-Year

Assessment of Recidivism at a

New Church-Based Prison in

South Korea

Seungmug (Zech) Lee1 and Robert D. McCrie2

Abstract

Substantial desistance from re-offending is one pragmatic goal of punishment. But

that goal seemingly is not achieved in the contemporary experience of corrections

within the U.S. This article marvels at how the abysmal record of desistance failure

has characterized American penological practices in an age of mass incarceration. It

notes prison programs are operationally desirable with short of empirical evidence

for reduced recidivism. Religious immersion provides a promising avenue for lower

recidivism. The article discusses a private prison in South Korea, built and operated by a

church organization, that now has a decade of operating experience with sizable lower

recidivism. The preliminary analysis shows a 3-year recidivism rate (re-incarceration)

of about 10% compared with about 23% in comparable Korean prisons.

Keywords

recidivism, private prison, religious programing, South Korea, correction

Introduction

Why do prisons in the United States, or South Korea, or for elsewhere else for that mat-

ter exist? Four objectives of imprisonment have been so widely cited that they have

become a mantra: deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, and correction (Fassin, 2018)

with recent addition of restorative justice (Pollock, 2019). This simple list of raisons

1The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA

2John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Seungmug (Zech) Lee, Criminology and Criminal Justice, The University of Texas at Arlington, Box

19595, University Hall, Room 362, Arlington, TX 76109-0595, USA.

Email: seungmug.lee@uta.edu

1086552IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X221086552International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyLee and McCrie

research-article2022

1164 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 67(12)

d’être does not suggest that they are equally significant, empirically researchable, or

quantifiably beneficial to society. They are all factors, however, in a broadly understood

concept for the use, misuse, or non-use of policies that relate to the administration of

correctional systems and are directly relevant to the operations of prisons. These factors

are not exclusive to penological practices in the U.S. but are found throughout eco-

nomically advanced nations, including the Republic of Korea (South Korea).

Deterrence implies the subjective probability that punishment will disincline a

potential offender from acting-out on his/her actions, arguing that (criminal) actions

have consequences and the knowledge of this inevitability deters criminal activity by

the mere existence of rule of law. Retribution, also called just deserts or more darkly

state-sanctioned vengeance, means that an offender deserves comeuppance arguably

commensurate with the harm caused by her/his criminal behavior; that is, criminals

deserve punishment. Incapacitation embodies the concept that an offender behind the

walls cannot continue his/her criminal activities due to lack of liberty, resulting in

short-term in jail or a term in prison. The American Law Institute finds this attribute “a

core value that no American jurisdiction would be willing to give up and is the only

legitimate utilitarian purpose of incarceration” (Reitz & Klingele, 2019, p. 283).

Correction equates with discipline, treatment, and rehabilitation of the offender,

espousing the point-of-view that incarceration presents an opportunity for the state to

advocate circumstances leading to change of “criminal” behavior for offenders who

will return to society in liberty following their “correction.” Contrarily, restorative

justice, as an alternative approach to the aforementioned prison objectives emphasizes

the motives and needs of all concerned—victims, offenders, and communities—rather

than simply retribution, with a goal of service and reparation, not punishment.

The first four tenets seem reasonable and comprehensive in making sense of state-

sanctioned punishment. They are imbued in Western and other traditions which ele-

vate the state as the punisher-in-chief of criminal convictions and ignore or downplay

possible roles for the family and the community in correctional decisions (Lacey,

1997). The first three of the tenants are part of the theoretical basis of the correctional

system—logical and imbued within contemporary culture—but are not defensible by

empirical methods; the fourth precept (correction/rehabilitation), only partially so.

Regardless of the inability to prove causation scientifically, punishment serves well

understood utilitarian and retributive purposes, but to what extent? Philosophical argu-

ments are prominent in any debate to justify the extent of a convict’s adjudicated

“debts to society” (Golash, 2005). Punishment presumably assuages harm directly to

victims and indirectly to society by fulfilling mandates of the court in a society based

on law. For some members of the public, the court and criminal justice system never

get it right: punishment meted to the convicted is likely to be too great; to others the

judicially meted punishment can never be sufficient. Emotions can supersede reason-

ing on how different audiences view the appropriateness of punishment; these feelings

change depending on many circumstances. Therefore, moral arguments for and against

punishment can neither be settled, nor subjected to an empirical resolution, but none-

theless are foundational in understanding why society allows the criminal justice sys-

tem to operate as it does.