마약류 중독 문제 해결을 위한 의무치료제도의 운영 방안 -약물법원과 약물보조치료에 대한 국제적 표준과 미국의 사례를 중심으로-

Abstract

This article argues that the operation of a mandatory treatment system, a therapeutic justice model, is essential to solve the problem of drug addiction. The authors argue that the operation of the mandatory treatment system is possible due to the 'conditional deferral of prosecution for participation in the judicial-treatment-rehabilitation linkage' system that has recently been implemented in South Korea. It also notes two features that make the linkage model a system that realizes the philosophy of therapeutic justice: first, because it is led by the judicial system, drug addicts are motivated to move toward continuous and complete treatment and rehabilitation, and second, the treatment and rehabilitation system can be customized for each addicted person. In order to develop the linkage model and other mandatory treatment systems in the future, the authors review international standards for drug courts and medication-assisted treatment as mandatory treatment systems, as well as the case of the United States. It first explains why a transnational approach to drug addiction is needed, citing unstable international politics, advances in synthetic drug technology, and evolving trade methods. It then examines the creation of various international organizations and international agreements to address the drug problem in order to identify transnational efforts. The book then examines drug courts, which function as problem-solving courts, and international standards for medication-assisted treatment, one of the most recent forms of mandatory treatment. In particular, it focuses on the UN's Guidelines for the Operation of Drug Courts and the International Standards for Medication-Assisted Treatment, and examines the application of these guidelines in other countries. In the case of overseas applications, we analyze in detail the application of the United States, a country with a long history of drug courts and an active public debate on medication-assisted treatment. The U.S. drug courts are compared to the UN's international standards and U.S. operational guidelines, and other studies on drug court performance are presented. In particular, the similarities between the UN international standards and the U.S. operating guidelines are analyzed in terms of the operating philosophy and basic principles based on therapeutic justice, and the differences are explained in terms of detailed procedures and monitoring systems for performance evaluation. In the case of medication-assisted treatment, we explain the background of the institutionalization of medication-assisted treatment in the United States and the health authorities' own initiatives to implement it. It also analyzes the similarities and differences between international standards and U.S. guidelines, noting that the goal and philosophy of medication-assisted treatment is to treat, not punish, drug addicts, while the differences lie in the approach to the addict and the detailed procedures. Furthermore, the paper explores some of the constitutional issues that could be challenged in the U.S. drug court system. In particular, it discusses the potential for conflicts between constitutional rights and drug court procedures, noting that the specialized procedures of drug courts have the potential to violate defendants' rights to a speedy trial, a public trial, and the right to be present in court. It also discusses the potential for violations of individuals' privacy rights in the operation of drug courts and explores alternatives to procedural safeguards. This article identifies what our legal system needs to watch out for in the future as we are in the early stages of implementing mandatory treatment.