While many modern nations are beginning to pursue rehabilitation as a core philosophy in imprisonment, there are numerous arguments against the trend, one of them being the upcoming release of Cho Doo-soon. Cho is a notorious child rapist who was convicted for viciously assaulting an eight-year-old female elementary school student in 2008. Since being sentenced to 12 years in prison — a sentence the Korean public deemed grossly insufficient — Cho has shown little remorse for his crime. In his petition to a judge, Cho said that he was a “good person” and that he never remembers anything after drinking, making claims that his acquaintances believe to be lies. Cho also threatened the police during interrogation, saying he will “train hard in prison” and that he “looks forward to [their] future encounter.”

It is highly unlikely that a criminal with 18 total convictions and shows little sign of remorse was and will be rehabilitated in prison. It is a massive waste of resources to attempt to reform the criminal, and it is an even greater risk to release him back to society. There have been numerous petitions against the release of Cho Doo-soon, partly due to sympathy for the victim but also due to legitimate concerns for Cho committing a crime again. While resentencing Cho now is constitutionally inappropriate, the sheer amount of nationwide attention still calls for a reconsideration of rehabilitative justice in Korea.

An alternative to rehabilitation is retributive justice, which focuses on sentencing a punishment proportional to the offense. Such a system would likely lead to a considerably longer prison sentence for Cho, reducing the chance of recidivism that the public fears. Likewise, retributive justice can enhance the public’s faith in the criminal justice system, as the system will serve “justice” for the victims. It places the human rights of the victims above those of the perpetrator; the victim of Cho’s rape will not have to live in fear that Cho will return to live only one kilometer away from her home. Furthermore, retribution reinforces the idea that crime is not a coincidence but a choice made by an individual. Its adamant message for society that certain conducts are wrong will serve as deterrents to crime. A retributive justice system will also reduce inconsistencies in prison sentences resulting from rehabilitative systems. In Korea, embezzlement of millions of dollars often only results in probation or a few years in prison, while repeated minor crimes like theft often result in more severe sentences. This seemingly counterintuitive pattern is under the rehabilitative logic that the former is unlikely for recidivism while the latter is likely for one. On the other hand, a retributive system will view embezzlement as a greater crime and therefore give a greater sentence, restoring the public’s trust in the justice system.

Advocates of rehabilitation often cite Norway’s prison system, which is actively designed to reintroduce criminals back to society by giving them as much freedom and normalcy as possible. However, there are severe limitations in applying this supposedly “ideal” model to other countries. Norway is a social welfare state, whereas countries like Korea and the US lie closer to capitalism. While the Norwegian prison system is made available by a public consensus on social welfare, its implementation in Korea will be met with fierce public backlash. Furthermore, rehabilitative prisons are costly. Norway spends approximately 93,000 USD yearly per prisoner, whereas Korea spends approximately 22,000 USD yearly per prisoner. Considering that Korea’s prison also attempts to rehabilitate to some extent, such discrepancy in cost indicates diminishing marginal returns in pursuing further rehabilitation.

Ultimately, however, advocating strictly for rehabilitation or retribution may be a false dilemma. After all, one system can be a combination of the two, harvesting the benefits of one philosophy while negating the shortcomings of the other. Therefore, this is not a call to abolish the rehabilitative method, but to put a brake on society’s accelerating trend towards rehabilitation. A yearning towards a supposedly ideal justice system may in fact be hurting the ones who need justice the most.