Prison Providing Chicken Only to Inmates in Production Work... Court Rules "Not Discrimination"

An Inmate Files Human Rights Petition:
"Discrimination Against Non-Working Prisoners"
Court: "Comparison Groups Are Not Fundamentally the Same"

The court has ruled that providing special meals only to inmates who participated in production work during holidays does not constitute discrimination. The court concluded that general inmates and those participating in production work are not fundamentally the same group.

According to Yonhap News on June 29, citing legal sources, the Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 3 (Presiding Judge Choi Sujin) ruled against plaintiff A in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the National Human Rights Commission's decision to dismiss his complaint, delivering the verdict on April 18.

A, who has been incarcerated in a correctional facility since 2016, filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission in February 2022. He argued, "Providing special holiday meals such as chicken and pizza only to inmates who go out for work is discrimination against those who do not go out for work or are pretrial detainees."

The Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint in July of the same year. The commission stated, "The special meals provided are based on different grounds and intended for different groups, so the comparison groups are not the same." A subsequently appealed to the commission's administrative review board, but this was also dismissed in October 2023.

The photo is not directly related to the article content. Pixabay

During the lawsuit, A argued, "I have never refused to go out for work; in fact, I applied, but the commission did not permit it, so I was unable to participate. In a situation where I cannot decide for myself whether to go out for work, it is unfair to discriminate based on food."

However, the court also rejected A's claims. The first-instance court ruled, "For discrimination to be established, the comparison groups must be fundamentally the same, but in this case, they are not."

The court further explained, "The provision of chicken in January 2022 was a reward for inmates who participated in prison labor, based on Article 20 of the Prison Labor Operation Guidelines. In contrast, the fruit pudding and juice provided to all inmates in February were general special meals to commemorate the holiday, in accordance with Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Execution of Criminal Penalties."

The court found, "Providing chicken was intended to encourage and reward participation in production work, so its purpose and intent differ from those for other inmates. This is a legitimate discretionary act that takes into account the particular circumstances of inmates participating in production work."

The court also stated, "The execution of imprisonment necessarily involves restrictions on basic rights for inmates. Some reasonable restrictions must be accepted as part of the process for correction and social reintegration, so this cannot be considered unreasonable discrimination," thereby dismissing A's claims.