The imprisonment system has developed together with promotion of the human rights for criminals. Therefore, it appears that the imprisonment system as a humanitarian punishment substituting for physical punishment will continue to exist unless an alternative measure emerges. A human being is given protection for the fundamental human rights even if he or she is a criminal owing to the imprisonment system, and is able to escape from cruel torture and lashing. However, there had been much criticism on whether the human rights of prisoners are properly protected as expected during an execution process of imprisonment performed in a closed space. In addition, much more discussions on whether personal liberty indeed is the focus of freedom of a human being deprived of imprisonment are needed. As a human being is deprived of personal liberty, freedom other than such liberty actually is also deprived or infringed upon. Therefore, much efforts should be exerted on improvement of a disciplinary system and a correctional institution, protection of the right to write, improvement of medical service, and expansion of participation by non-government personnel in order to protect or promote the human rights of convicts within the facility. Although prisoners in the facility are the subject of correction, rehabilitation, and punishment, since they are weak, on the other hand, it is believed that a dispute over the infringement of the human rights will disappear naturally when thinking from their viewpoints and caring for with the same attitude as parents are accepted.

The death penalty is one of the oldest forms of punishment, and despite its evil nature it still remains a worthy system. Ultimately, of course, the capital punishment is stepping towards extinction. Also, many countries are banning it altogether, if not already banned. However, it is rather inappropriate to say that a country that prohibits execution is a country that assures humans rights. Similarly, a person against the death penalty does not necessarily mean that he/she is a human rights activist. So far, the debate whether to continue or to abolish the capital punishment has been valued too abstractly by ethical and religious measures. It is true that the death penalty has realistic functions such as acting as the last measures to social protection, realizing judicial definition, and reducing criminal judicial cost, however, they have not been valued properly. Thus, these functions must be considered before a decision can be made whether to use the death penalty or to eliminate it from the society. The capital punishment has been used as means to control the society, the East and the West alike, from the ancient times and has undergone many changes historically. One of the main problems of the system, however, is the fact that it has been used as a political tool. Therefore, the death penalty has to be prevented altogether from being used as an instrument to rid of political opponents or to suppress minor powers or alienated groups. In addition, the system has to be strengthened by devising plans to minimize the room for error. Criminal law that allows death penalty to political offenders or public safely violators should be revised. Meanwhile, trial procedures, such as trials by jury, also need changes so that the highest level of prudence is given for the capital punishment. The capital punishment is a fearful system where human lives are take away but is also absolutely necessary. It is an appropriate retribution for those immoral members of the society who has no respect for the life of others. It also is a defense mechanism to prevent more lives from being harmed. Therefore, we must change our attitude about the death penalty to a more realistic viewpoint. In general, those criminal procedures that only protect the criminals rights should also be revised to protect the victims instead. In sum, the capital punishment will no longer be needed when the criminals that deserve the ultimate punishment no longer exist in our society.

When examining existing theories of crime, we are led to an agreement that crime is eventually private as well as public evil. However this conclusion may neglect a possibility that whoever lives his life as a good citizen under the constraint of law in a nation-state may someday find himself to be a criminal. Crime is not just a problem caused by a special kind of man. Even if we can tell criminal activities as delinquent, it is not unreasonable that they are not abnormal. Based on the assumption that a few special persons commit crimes, so far most literatures on crime tend to concentrate on either some properties of criminals or the relation between environmental and human factors. Circumscribed by its narrow presupposition, criminology cannot but provide the crippled power of explanation over the ocean of criminal cases in reality. If we admit crime is a normal phenomenon of everyday social routine, it may be more profitable for the future studies of correction to focus on the question of how to defend our society from criminal delinquencies in practice than to make efforts in making conflictive arguments in theory. Also how to rehabilitate criminal victims who have been excluded from the process of criminal justice should be stressed as a main theme in light of criminal policies. In consideration of these problematics, this study tries to show the future direction of correction policies. Chapter 2 explains the existing theories and groups them into two families according to their analytic dimensions. Classifying the theories of innate or inherent criminality as of 'personal level causes,' I call the theories of socio-environmental factors as of 'social level causes.' In chapter 3, I examine both the existing theories on crime and some problems in the current corrective system with a critical viewpoint. In chapter 4, I want to present a few alternatives for the future direction of correction. These alternatives include the cooperation and coordination between criminal justice agencies, reparation for criminal victims, and the introduction of private jails or penitentiaries. In this article, I argue we should concentrate our attention rather on correcting offenders individually by changing their relations with structural factors than on searching for the more evident causes of crime. In terms of improvement I also propose some measures such as the introduction of governmental indemnification for the whole society as well as individuals directly victimized by crimes and the prisoners' reimbursement system for their own penitentiary costs. We are so deeply accustomed to the rational and mechanical type of assumption that we cannot be readily accept the critical review developed in this study. However we explore the causes of crime to improve our society in practice. If we accept this ultimate purpose of criminological studies, it cannot be denied the importance of practical efforts to enhance the efficiency of corrective policies as well as to realize common good for all the people pertinent to the social phenomena of crime including offenders as the objects of correction, victims, law enforcing agencies and even tax payers who want social security.