범죄유형을 고려하지 않는 가석방 기준을 향한 증거에 기반한 비판
Evidence-based criticism against the parole decision guidelines without a consideration of type of crime
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
범죄는 유형마다 원인이 다르기에 범죄유형별 교정프로그램도 달라야 하며 재사회화 준비, 그리고 그에 대한 최종 평가 기준도 달라야 한다. 그러나 안타깝게도 현재의가석방 심사기준을 살펴보면 가석방이 그 범죄 원인이나 재범위험성을 합리적으로 평가하지 못하는 것이 아니라, 여전히 형기단축의 차원에서 호혜적으로 진행되는 절차로 보인다. 범죄유형이나 원인에 대한 평가가 부재한 채 가석방 결정이 이루어지기 때문이다. 본 연구는 가석방 결정에 범죄유형이 고려되는지 검증하기 위하여 총 477건의 보호관찰 대상자들의 정보를 수집하였다. 수집자료는 보호관찰 사안조사서이고, 그 안에서개인적 요인, 법적 요인, 범죄유형, 교도소 생활요인 등을 선별하여 독립변수로 사용하였다. 종속변수는 잔형기간과 잔형비율을 활용하였다. 분석방법은 위계적 회귀분석방식을 활용하였다. 결과에 따르면 잔형비율을 중심으로 분석하였을 때, 심리와 건상상태가 안 좋은 수형자들이 상대적으로 빠른 비율로 가석방되었고, 잔형기간을 중심으로 살펴보았을 때에는 법원에서 선고한 형량이 높은 수형자가 빨리 가석방 되었다. 두 종속변수에서 중복적으로 유의미한 변수는 벌횟수였고, 벌횟수가 적을수록 빨리가석방되었다. 결과에 대한 더욱 심층있는 논의와 정책적 함의는 본문을 통해 논의하도록 한다.
Abstract
All crime have different own causes from type to type. That is why correction programs for each type of crime must be different, preparation for re-socialization and final evaluation criteria for each type of crime must be different. Unfortunately, however, the current parole screening standards do not make a reasonable assessment of the cause of the crime, but still seem to be a reciprocal procedure in terms of reducing the sentence. This study collected a total o f 477 cases o f information of those subject to probation to verify that the types of crimes are considered in determining parole. The data is from a probation investigation document for each criminal, and within it, personal factors, legal factors, criminal types, and attitude factor in prison selected and used as independent variables. Dependent variables are remained days and the residual ratio of the sentence. The method of analysis used hierarchical linear regression. According to the results, inmates with poor mental and physical conditions were released on parole at a relatively earlier when analyzed around the residual ratio. And inmates with higher sentences sentenced by the court became released on parole earlier than others when analyzed around the remained days. In the two dependent variables, the both significant variable was the number of punishment in prison. That is, less punishment favored parole decisions. Further discussion of the outcome and its policy implications are discussed through the text.
참고문헌 (43)
- 김철호, "우리나라와 이론 가석방제도의 비교분석", 범죄방지포럼, (7) (2000)
- 박미랑, "가석방 심사에 있어 재량권과 평가기준에 대한 고찰", 교정연구, 67(67), pp.155~182 (2015), 한국교정학회[DOI]
- 장영민, "가석방의 실태와 효율적 운영방안", 형사정책연구, 3(1) (1992)
- 정승환, "행형법관의 도입에 관한 고찰", 형사정책연구, 12(4) (2001)
- 한영수, "현행 가석방심사체계의 문제점", 형사정책, 15(1), pp.3~180 (2003), 한국형사정책학회
- Bonger, W., "Criminality and Economic Conditions", ~ (1917)
- Bowman, E. L., "Examining the predictors of parole release in a rural jail population", Prison journal, 97(5), pp.543~561 (2017)
- Caplan, J. M., "Parole system anomie: Conflicting models of casework and surveillance", Federal Probation, 70(3), pp.32~36 (2006)
- Caplan, J. M., "Composition and requirements of parole boards in the U.S.: A national survey", Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society of Criminology (2005)
- Caplan, J. M, "Parole release decisions: impact of victim input on representative sample of inmates", Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(3), pp.291~300 (2010)
- Carroll, J. S., "Causal Theories of Crime and Their Effect upon Expert Parole Decisions", Law and Human Behavior, 2(4), pp.377~388 (1978)
- Carroll, J. S., "Evaluation and prediction in expert parole decisions", Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(3), pp.315~332 (1990)
- Carroll, J. S., "Evaluation, diagnosis, and prediction in parole decision making", Law and Society Review, 17, pp.199~228 (1982)
- Conley, J. A., "Decision making by part-time parole board", Criminal Justice and Behavior, 9, pp.396~431 (1982)
- Gottfredson, D., "Differences in parole decisions associated with decision-makers", Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 3(2), pp.112~119 (1966)
- Gottfredson, D. M., "Classification for parole decision policy" (1978), National Council of Crime and Delinquency Research Center
- Gottfredson, M. R., "Parole board decision making: A study of disparity reduction and the impact of institutional behavior", Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 70(1), pp.77~88 (1979)
- Gottschalk, M., "The prison and the gallows: The politics of mass incarceration in America" (2006), Cambridge University Press
- Hannah-Moffat, K., "Losing ground: Gendered knowledges, parole risk, and responsibility", Social Politics, 11(3), pp.363~385 (2004)
- Hoffman, P. B., "Paroling policy feedback", Crime and Delinquency, 9, pp.117~133 (1972)
- Houster, K. A., "Mental health risk factors and parole decision: does inmate mental health status affect who gets released?", International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, pp.2950~ (2019)
- Parole decision making in Hawaii: Setting minimum terms, approving release, deciding on revocation, and predicting success and failure on parole, "Kassebaum, G.", Department of the Attorney General, ~, pp.NCJRS Publication No. 191270 (2001)
- Matejkpwski, J., "The impact of severe mental illness on parole decision: Social integration within a prison setting", Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(9), pp.1005~1029 (2010)
- New Jersey’s “No Early Release Act”: Its impact on prosecution, sentencing, corrections, and victim satisfaction, "McCoy, C.", ~, pp.NCJ Document No. 203977 (2003)
- McLeod, M., "Getting free: Victim participation in parole board decisions", Criminal Justice, 4(1), pp.12~15 (1989)
- Morgan, K., "Victims, punishment, and parole: The effect of victim participation on parole hearings", Criminology &Public Policy, 4(2), pp.333~360 (2005)
- Morgan, K. D., "Parole release decisions revisited: An analysis of parole release decisions for violent inmates in a southeastern state", Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, pp.277~287 (2005)
- Parsonage, W. H., "Victim impact testimony and Pennsylvania’s parole decision making process: A pilot study", Criminal Justice Policy Review, 6(3), pp.187~206 (1994)
- Pager, D., "The Mark of a Criminal Record", American Journal of Sociology, 108(5), pp.937~975 (2003)
- Challenges of Prisoner Reentry and Parole in California, "Petersilia, J.", California Policy Research Center, ~ (2000)
- Petersilia, J., "Prisoner reentry: Public safety and reintegration challenges", The Prison Journal, 81(3), pp.360~375 (2001)
- Pogrebin, M., "Parole decision making in Colorado", Journal of Criminal Justice, 14(2), pp.147~156 (1986)
- Proctor, J. L., "The “new parole”: An analysis of parole board decision making as a function of eligibility", Journal of Crime & Justice, 22(2), pp.193~217 (1999)
- Quinney, R., "The Social Reality of Crime" (1970), Little, Brown
- Shin, H. J., "Do lesser pleas pay? Accommodations in the sentencing and parole processes", Journal of Criminal Justice, 1, pp.27~42 (1973)
- Smith, B. L., "The effect of victim participation on parole decisions: Results from a southeastern state", Criminal Justice Policy Review, 8(1), pp.57~74 (1997)
- Steiner, E., "Early release for seriously ill elderly prisoners: Should French practice be followed?", Probation Journal, 50(3), pp.267~276 (2003)
- Talarico, S. M., "Criminal Justice: Law and Politics", pp.1988, Brooks
- Turpin-Petrosino, C., "Are limiting enactments effective? An experimental test of decision making in a presumptive parole state", Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(4), pp.321~332 (1999)
- Tzeng, S., "Applying DEMATEL to investigate the relationship between factors affecting parole boards’ decision-making in Taiwan", The Prison Journal, 94(1), pp.118~136 (2014)
- Von Hirsch, A., "The question of parole—retention, reform and abolition?" (1979), Ballinger
- West-Smith, M., "Denial of parole:An inmate perspective", Federal Probation, 64(2), pp.3~10 (2000)
- Winfree, L. T., "Responding to a legislated change in correctional practices: A quasi-experimental study of revocation hearings and parole board actions", Journal of Criminal Justice, 18, pp.195~215 (1990)