NCJ Number
205813
Date Published
2003
Length
15 pages
Annotation
This paper describes the system of Community Service Orders (CSO) in Korea.
Abstract
The CSO in Korea offers an alternative sanction to incarceration and requires an offender to perform services for the benefit of society without payment. This measure is now widely available in Korea after being adapted from the Juvenile Act and extended to adult offenders in 1998. CSO’s endorse non-custodial sentences and promote an integrated form of criminal sanction in terms of punishment, restitution, and reintegration. The legal basis for CSO’s in Korea is reviewed, followed by a description of CSO’s introduction and the background leading to its introduction. The need for a CSO system was recognized when it became apparent that custodial sentences were largely ineffective as a deterrent against future offending and that penal institutions were offering ineffective rehabilitation services to offenders. CSO’s were thus founded on the needs for stringent criminal sanctions, reparations for the offense, and reintegration and community involvement. Next, the CSO is reviewed, including its definition, purpose, and the criteria for imposing a CSO on juvenile and adult offenders. The enforcement mechanism for CSO is discussed and the monitoring of offenders on CSO’s is considered. Enforcement of CSO’s is the responsibility of the Bureau of Social Protection and Rehabilitation in the Ministry of Justice. Consequences for breaching CSO’s are described, and include the discontinuation of CSO’s and the possibility of imposing additional sanctions. Statistical information is offered on the use of CSO’s, including numbers of CSO’s imposed from 1989 through 2002, information on violations of CSO’s, type of work performed on CSO’s, and recidivism following a CSO. Evaluation of the Korean justice system reveals that about 60 percent of offenders are under the supervision of the probation system. Although Korea has come a long way toward reducing its prison population, challenges remain in returning prisoners to the population. More of an emphasis on social work functions in the work of probation officers is called for as the current system focuses too heavily on social sciences and correctional administration. References