The Importation of Violent “Codes” of South Korean Inmates

• Author: Jaeyong Choi,Brandon Dulisse
• DOI: 10.1177/0032885520916816
• Date: 01 June 2020
• Published date: 01 June 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885520916816

The Prison Journal

2020, Vol. 100(3) 287 –311

© 2020 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0032885520916816

journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj

Article

The Importation of

Violent “Codes” of South

Korean Inmates

Jaeyong Choi1 and Brandon Dulisse2

Abstract

Despite the popularity of the importation model, the majority of previous

institutional misconduct research has used individual characteristics, such as

race, prior record, education, and sex as proxies to test this theory. This study

examines particular oppositional beliefs and values found in Anderson’s “code

of the street” through an analysis of self-report data from 951 adult male

prison inmates in South Korea. This study fills a void in previous research by

examining direct impacts of imported belief systems on inmate interpersonal

aggression toward fellow inmates and correctional officers.

Keywords

code of the street, importation model, interpersonal aggression, inmate

violence

Introduction

Criminologists have long argued whether negative experiences and behavior

in the prison setting is caused by imported belief systems or the deprivation

of natural freedoms. Deprivation theorists contend that the causes for inmate

behavior are primarily due to loss of autonomy, unpredictability, and other

pains and adversities of imprisonment (e.g., Sykes, 1958). In stark contrast,

1Angelo State University, San Angelo, TX, USA

2Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jaeyong Choi, Department of Security Studies and Criminal Justice, Angelo State University,

2601 W. Avenue N., San Angelo, TX 76909, USA.

Email: Jaeyong.choi@angelo.edu

916816TPJXXX10.1177/0032885520916816The Prison JournalChoi and Dulisse

research-article2020

288 The Prison Journal 100(3)

importation theorists suggest inmate behavior is largely an extension of

developed attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors developed in the commu-

nity that are imported when an inmate enters the prison context (e.g., Irwin &

Cressey, 1962). Empirical support has occasionally been found for both the

deprivation (see Moos, 1976) and importation (see Schwartz, 1971) hypoth-

eses, but it remains a matter of debate as to the true source of influence on

inmate behavior.

This study seeks to understand the influence of violent subcultures

imported inside the prison. We believe the importation model provides the

most-sound theoretical model for our study and will be examined hereafter as

a possible explanation of inmate violence for several reasons. First, violent

subcultures shaped outside of the prison maintain many similarities with

inmate value systems inside the prison (Mitchell et al., 2017). As many pris-

oners began as adherers of violent subcultures outside of prison, the importa-

tion of these beliefs remains a plausible hypothesis. Second, a majority of

institutional misconduct research has historically focused on individual char-

acteristics, such as race, prior record, education, and sex to test this theory

(Steiner et al., 2014; Tasca et al., 2010). Given that cultural belief systems

may not be directly translated into the social and demographic characteristics

of inmates, these proxy measures are necessary but not sufficient in demon-

strating a direct effect of an imported belief system. Even fewer attempts

have been made to understand which specific beliefs and values may be

imported into these incarcerative settings.

Literature Review

The Importation Model

An extensive body of literature has investigated the various factors that influ-

ence inmates’ behaviors within the correctional setting (Liebling & Arnold,

2004; Sparks et al., 1996). One major paradigm, the importation model, has

long prevailed (Irwin & Cressey, 1962). Previous empirical analysis has

focused primarily on individual characteristics such as marital status, age,

and educational attainment as predictors of inmate behavior (Cao et al., 1997;

Reisig & Lee, 2000; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008).

Despite the prevalence of evidence supporting an importation paradigm,

the majority of importation research has been limited to using proxy mea-

sures to capture the relationship between previous background characteristics

and values with current ones. Given that the importation model supports the

assumption that an association exists between an individual’s cultural belief

systems before incarceration and current inmate behavior, little effort has