소년형사사건과 국민참여재판
Juvenile Criminal Cases and Civic Participation Trials
0
조회
0
다운로드
11
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Adopting Civic Participation System in the Juvenile Justice has a positive point which can not only have national understanding and trust on the Juvenile Justice but also obtain national agreement and cooperation to make various policies for delinquency prevention and rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents. However, it is necessary that the Juvenile Justice should be considered in terms of protecting juveniles when Civic Participation System is adopted to the Juvenile Justice. Thus, there are lots of points to reconsider and adjust because Civic Participation Trials as a form of the Jury System are not appropriate in the Juvenile Justice. First, there is no exception even in the Juvenile Law in terms of that the criminal justice should be practiced on democratic justice, transparency, fairness, and reliance. For instance, a citizen who belongs to a community can participate in the Juvenile Justice, so that the effective and various systems for the juvenile delinquents can be produced. Therefore, the Juvenile Justice needs a certain type of Civic Participation System unlike adult criminal cases. Second, I believe that Civic Participation Trials as a form of the Jury System are not proper for juvenile protection cases and juvenile criminal cases as well. Third, it is difficult to expect that Civic Participation Trials as a form of Jury System recognize the full reason of protective treatments and send the case to a Juvenile Court. And yet, in the case, the presiding judge and lawyer should explain fully the jury about the Juvenile Law, its meaning, the kinds and contents of protective treatments, and the aim of the article 50 of Juvenile Law. Fourth, pre-sentence inquiry and examination principle should be prepared, adjusted, and added in the System of Civic Participation Trials. Fifth, as for the alleviating measure of death penalty and life imprisonment on the Juvenile Law, the Law of Civic Participation Trials should be revised in order to apply for juveniles from the ages of 14 to 17. Finally, as for the Juvenile Justice, Civic Participation System by Continental mixed Jury System is a lot better than Civic Participation Trials by the Jury System although the Continental mixed Jury System does not have strong points only. Moreover, it has more favorable and advantageous points for juvenile protection and rehabilitation. In the end, I would like to suggest that we had better adopt Civic Participation System by Continental mixed Jury System for the Juvenile Justice, aside from the Adult Criminal Justice.
Abstract
Adopting Civic Participation System in the Juvenile Justice has a positive point which can not only have national understanding and trust on the Juvenile Justice but also obtain national agreement and cooperation to make various policies for delinquency prevention and rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents. However, it is necessary that the Juvenile Justice should be considered in terms of protecting juveniles when Civic Participation System is adopted to the Juvenile Justice. Thus, there are lots of points to reconsider and adjust because Civic Participation Trials as a form of the Jury System are not appropriate in the Juvenile Justice. First, there is no exception even in the Juvenile Law in terms of that the criminal justice should be practiced on democratic justice, transparency, fairness, and reliance. For instance, a citizen who belongs to a community can participate in the Juvenile Justice, so that the effective and various systems for the juvenile delinquents can be produced. Therefore, the Juvenile Justice needs a certain type of Civic Participation System unlike adult criminal cases. Second, I believe that Civic Participation Trials as a form of the Jury System are not proper for juvenile protection cases and juvenile criminal cases as well. Third, it is difficult to expect that Civic Participation Trials as a form of Jury System recognize the full reason of protective treatments and send the case to a Juvenile Court. And yet, in the case, the presiding judge and lawyer should explain fully the jury about the Juvenile Law, its meaning, the kinds and contents of protective treatments, and the aim of the article 50 of Juvenile Law. Fourth, pre-sentence inquiry and examination principle should be prepared, adjusted, and added in the System of Civic Participation Trials. Fifth, as for the alleviating measure of death penalty and life imprisonment on the Juvenile Law, the Law of Civic Participation Trials should be revised in order to apply for juveniles from the ages of 14 to 17. Finally, as for the Juvenile Justice, Civic Participation System by Continental mixed Jury System is a lot better than Civic Participation Trials by the Jury System although the Continental mixed Jury System does not have strong points only. Moreover, it has more favorable and advantageous points for juvenile protection and rehabilitation. In the end, I would like to suggest that we had better adopt Civic Participation System by Continental mixed Jury System for the Juvenile Justice, aside from the Adult Criminal Justice.
참고문헌 (35)
- "서울서부지방법원 2008고합63", ~ (2008)
- 하태영, "국민의 사법참여 -‘국민의 형사재판 참여에 관한 법률(안)’을 중심으로-", 형사법연구, (24), pp.305~336 (2005), 한국형사법학회
- 김민영, "시민참여재판 추진방안에 대한 입장", 국민의 사법참여 공청회 자료집 토론자료, 8~ (2005)
- 권영설, "국민의 사법참여제도와 헌법", 국민의 사법참여 공청회:주제 발표문, 25~27 (2004)
- 차병직, "배심재판 제도를 지지하며", 국민의 사법참여 공청회:지정토론문, 220~ (2004)
- 도중진, "형사재판에의 시민참여방안", 형사정책연구, 15(4), pp.239~276 (2004), 한국형사정책연구원
- 윤영철, "합리적인 ‘국민의 사법참여제도’에 관한 소고 - 사법개혁위원회건의안과 사법제도개혁추진위원회공청회안에 대한 비판을 중심으로", 형사정책연구, 16(2), pp.245~278 (2005), 한국형사정책연구원
- 한인섭, "국민의 사법참여-그 구체적 실현방안", 국민의 사법참여 공청회: 주제발표문, 127~ (2004)
- 佐藤博史‧, "少年司法と市民参加, In 少年法の課題と展望, 第2巻", pp.244~ (2006)
- 이완규, "지정토론문", 국민의 사법참여 공청회 자료집, 207~208 (2004)
- 정진연, "국민참여재판에서 한국형 배심제의 도입", 법학논총, 15, pp.4~ (2006), 숭실대학교
- 佐藤博史, "重大少年事件と裁判員制度", 現代刑事法, 7(1), pp.88~ (2005)
- 정진경, "국민의형사재판참여에관한법률에 따른 배심원재판의 유의점-2006.4.12.자 모의재판 경험을 바탕으로-", 국민의 형사재판 참여에 있어서 방법과 문제: 국민의 사법참여 연구회 학술토론회 자료집, 3, pp.3~ (2007)
- 한상훈, "국민의 형사재판참여에 관한 법률상 배심원선정절차의 내용과 검토", 형사정책, 19(1), pp.65~89 (2007), 한국형사정책학회
- Lilie, Hans, "독일 형사사법에서의 시민참여", 형사정책, 13(1), pp.344~ (2001)
- 比嘉康光, "ドイツの少年参審制度", 立正大学法制研究所研究年報, (2), pp.24~25 (1997)
- 森山正, "ビギナーズ少年法", pp.322~ (2008)
- 정진수, "일본의 재판원 제도 - 그 성립경위와 주요내용", 형사정책연구, 18(3), pp.839~864 (2007), 한국형사정책연구원
- 신정훈, "일본의 재판원제도의 내용과 문제점", 형사정책연구, 17(4), pp.397~436 (2006), 한국형사정책연구원
- 崔鍾植, "韓国おける国民の刑事裁判参与制度", 刑事弁護, (53), pp.163~168 (2008)
- 広瀬健二, "海外少年司法制度", 家庭裁判調査月報, 48(10), pp.8~ (1996)
- 한국소년법학회, "소년법", pp.65~ (2006)
- Martin R. Garcner, "UNDERSTANDING JUVENILE LAW, 2nd Edition", pp.252~253 (2002)
- 新倉修, "少年法と陪審裁判, In 少年法の展望", pp.390~ (2000)
- 澤登俊雄, "少年法入門, 第4版", pp.235~ (2008)
- 岩堀裕, "裁判員裁判における少年の刑事事件", 東京大学法科大学院ローレビュー, 2, pp.48~ (2007)
- 김수현, "국민참여재판 제도의 제문제", 국민참여재판 6개월의 현황과 평가:국민의사법참여연구회 학술토론 자료집, 6, pp.10~ (2008)
- 장상균, "국민참여재판 운영의 몇 가지 문제점", 국민참여재판 6개월의 현황과 평가:국민의 사법참여연구회 학술토론 자료집, 6, pp.48~ (2008)
- "국민참여재판에 대한 변호인의 고찰-서울서부지방법원에서 이루어진 2건의 국민참여재판을 중심으로- 참여사회, 2008년 9월호" (2008), 김형국[URL]
- 김형국, "국민참여재판에 대한 변호인의 고찰-2008.5.27. 서울서부지방법원 2008고합00 강도상해 등 사건을 중심으로-", 국민참여재판 6개월의 현황과 평가:국민의 사법참여 연구회 학술토론회 자료집, 6, pp.26~27 (2008)
- 최병각, "소년법개정과 소년사법의 건전한 육성", 형사정책연구, 18(3), pp.1081~1104 (2007), 한국형사정책연구원
- 최종식, "제6차 소년법개정의 문제점에 관한 고찰", 형사정책, 20(1), pp.351~376 (2008), 한국형사정책학회
- 배종대, "형법의 목적과 소년형벌의 효율성 검토-사형․자유형(부정기형)을 중심으로-", 청소년범죄연구, 4, pp.25~ (1986)
- 최종식, "소년법과 사형문제", 강원법학, 11, pp.303~310 (1999)
