재범에 대한 형가중제도
Enhancement of Sentence for Recidivism
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article analyses enhancement of sentence for recidivism including repeat offence, habitual offence and multiple offences in Korean Criminal Law, especially in comparison with California's Three Strikes Law. The purpose of the Three Strikes law is to ensure longer prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a felony and have been previously convicted of serious and/or violent felony offences. Under the mandatory sentencing scheme the court must double the sentence of felony charged for two strikers. And the court must impose a sentence of at least twenty-five years to life for the three strikers. Especially a recidivist cannot be granted probation or have his sentence suspended. Repeat offenders can only serve their sentences in state prison and they must serve at least eighty percent of there sentence to be eligible for parole. Only a prosecutor can move to dismiss an alleged prior felony conviction in the furtherance of justice or if there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior conviction. But the California Supreme Court held that a trial judge could, on his or her own motion, dismiss a prior strike in the interest of justice. There are three ways to enhance sentence for recidivists in Korea. If a defendant is convicted of repeat offence which has been committed within 3 years after release or exemption from imprisonment, the upper term is increased to two times. When a person commits several acts which could be integrated as a habitual offense, he or she shall be punished by increasing one half of sentence for normal offence or otherwise enhanced sentence. In cases a criminal is convicted multiple offences in the same proceeding or separate proceedings, the final penalty will be the most severe sentence, one half of that, or parallel imposition. In order to ensure proper sentence for recidivism, we need to adopt the mandatory sentencing schemes such as Three Strikes law. And specialized penalty with narrower boundary is necessary as a starting point.
Abstract
This article analyses enhancement of sentence for recidivism including repeat offence, habitual offence and multiple offences in Korean Criminal Law, especially in comparison with California's Three Strikes Law. The purpose of the Three Strikes law is to ensure longer prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a felony and have been previously convicted of serious and/or violent felony offences. Under the mandatory sentencing scheme the court must double the sentence of felony charged for two strikers. And the court must impose a sentence of at least twenty-five years to life for the three strikers. Especially a recidivist cannot be granted probation or have his sentence suspended. Repeat offenders can only serve their sentences in state prison and they must serve at least eighty percent of there sentence to be eligible for parole. Only a prosecutor can move to dismiss an alleged prior felony conviction in the furtherance of justice or if there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior conviction. But the California Supreme Court held that a trial judge could, on his or her own motion, dismiss a prior strike in the interest of justice. There are three ways to enhance sentence for recidivists in Korea. If a defendant is convicted of repeat offence which has been committed within 3 years after release or exemption from imprisonment, the upper term is increased to two times. When a person commits several acts which could be integrated as a habitual offense, he or she shall be punished by increasing one half of sentence for normal offence or otherwise enhanced sentence. In cases a criminal is convicted multiple offences in the same proceeding or separate proceedings, the final penalty will be the most severe sentence, one half of that, or parallel imposition. In order to ensure proper sentence for recidivism, we need to adopt the mandatory sentencing schemes such as Three Strikes law. And specialized penalty with narrower boundary is necessary as a starting point.
참고문헌 (48)
- 김성룡, "독일의 ‘스토킹행위의 처벌에 관한 법률’의 고찰", 형사정책연구, 18(4), pp.135~158 (2007), 한국형사정책연구원
- 이혜선, "스토킹에 대한 법률과 일반인의 인식 비교", 형사정책연구, 17(4), pp.363~396 (2006), 한국형사정책연구원
- 강동욱, "수사에 있어서 여죄조사를 둘러싼 제문제점", 법과정책연구, (2(6)), pp.651~673 (2006), 한국법정책학회
- 이은모, "별건체포․구속과 여죄수사의 적법성의 한계", 형사법연구, (16), pp.195~ (2001)
- "범죄분석", 266~ (2007)
- 정진연, "출소자의 재범방지를 위한 갱생보호제도의 활성화 방안", 성균관법학, 16(1), pp.531~568 (2004), 법학연구소
- 윤진원, "미국 삼진법 연구", 해외연수검사연구논문집, 13(2), pp.5~56 (1997)
- 신동운, "형법총론 제3판", pp.812~ (2008), 법문사
- 김해룡, "누범가중제도의 법리", pp.2000~
- 원형식, "상습범과 누범의 가중처벌의 문제", 형사법연구, (22), pp.579~581 (2004)
- 손동권, "상습범 및 누범에 대한 형벌가중의 문제점", 형사판례연구, 4, pp.127~ (1996)
- 윤동호, "형벌가중체계의 개선방안: 누범․상습범․경합범, 한국형사정책연구원", 109~ (2006)
- 한상훈, "형법 및 형사특별법상 재산범죄 가중처벌규정의 문제점과 개선방안", 형사법연구, (26), pp.139~168 (2006), 한국형사법학회
- 송문호, "상습범 및 누범의 대책에 대한 문제점", 형사법연구, (16), pp.191~192 (2001)
- 최병각, "상습범의 법제와 개선방향", 비교형사법연구, 3(1), pp.283~287 (2001)
- 최병각, "경합범의 성립과 처벌", 비교형사법연구, 6(1), pp.73~90 (2004), 한국비교형사법학회
- 황태정, "형법상 동의의 법적 효과와 한계", 형사법연구, 19(2), pp.63~86 (2007), 한국형사법학회
- 이경열, "사후적 경합범에 대한 형의 집행과 남은 문제점", 비교형사법연구, 8(2), pp.319~340 (2006), 한국비교형사법학회
- 김태명, "경합범 처벌상의 문제점”, 21세기의 형벌과 양형, 국제학술회의 자료집", 333~334 (2006)
- 김태명, "개정형법상 사후적 경합범의 요건과 처벌", 비교형사법연구, 7(2(2)), pp.1~28 (2005), 한국비교형사법학회
- 최석윤, "양형에 대한 기초적 이해", 형사정책연구, 8(1), pp.286~287 (1987)
- 최병각, "양형의 과정과 통제", 형사정책연구, 11(3), pp.160~ (2000)
- 최석윤, "상징형법에 대한 비판적 고찰", 비교형사법연구, 5(2-1), pp.6~164 (2003), 한국비교형사법학회
- 김학태, "상징형법의 의미와 기능", 외법논집, 6, pp.61~84 (1999)
- 김한균, "성폭력범죄에 대한 형사특별법과 양형정책의 개선방안", 115~ (2008)
- 윤승은, "특정범죄가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 적용상의 몇 가지 문제점과 개선방안", 형사법연구, (26), pp.126~127 (2006)
- 최호진, "상습범의 상습성 판단자료와 죄수판단", 비교형사법연구, 7(1), pp.343~368 (2005), 한국비교형사법학회
- 윤동호, "형법 제40조 ＂1개의 행위＂의 의미와 범주", 형사법연구, (26), pp.297~320 (2006), 한국형사법학회
- 백형구, "수죄의 실체적 경합과 상상적 경합-통설에 대한 비판적 이론 구성-", 인권과 정의, (361), pp.94~108 (2006), 대한변호사협회
- Luna, "Foreword: Three Strikes in a Nutshell”, 20 Thomas Jefferson Law Review 1", 2-4., ~ (1998)
- Sze, Victor S, "A Tale of Three Strikes: Slogan Triumphs over Substance as Our Bumper-Sticker Mentality Comes Home to Roost”, 28 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 1047", 1052., ~ (1995)
- Wyman, "Three Strikes You're Out(It's About Time)”, 26 University of West Los Angeles Law Review 249", 253., ~ (1995)
- Note, "Recent Legislation: California Enacts Enhancements for Prior Felony Convictions”, 107 Harvard Law Review", ,107 Harvard Law Review,2123,1994,p, 2123~ (1994)
- Owens, Mark W, "California's Three Strikes Law: Desperate Times Require Desperate Measures - But Will It Work?”, 26 Pacific Law Journal 881", 882~ (1995)
- Forquer, Lise, "California's Three Strikes Law: Should a Juvenile Adjudication be a Ball or a Strike?”, 32 San Diego Law Review", 78~89 (1995)
- Zirming, "Hawkins", Kamin, pp.2001, 126~133
- Goodno, Naomi Harlin, "Career Criminals Targeted: The Verdict is In, California's Three Strikes Law Proves Effective”, 37 Golden Gate University Law Review", 463., 463~ (2007)
- 오영근, "부정기형제도에 관한 연구, 한국형사정책연구원", 58~69 (1993)
- 최병각, "자수의 소송법적 효과", 비교형사법연구, 5(1), pp.14~364 (2003), 한국비교형사법학회
- 최병각, "소년감경의 적용요건과 소송법적 효과", 형사법연구, (12), pp.476~477 (1999)
- 최병각, "양형의 과정과 통제", 164~178
- 변동걸, "전통적 양형기준의 근거와 그 문제점”, 법원행정처, 양형적정화방안 모색을 위한 토론회 결과보고서", 77~ (1985)
- 배종대, "형법총론 제8전정판", pp.826~827 (2005), 홍문사
- 한영수, "특가법상 가중처벌규정의 문제점과 개선방안: 재산범죄를 제외한 구성요건을 중심으로", 형사법연구, (26), pp.170~181 (2006)
- 이기헌, "동종의 범죄를 가액에 따라 차등처벌하는 특별형법규정", 형사판례연구, 3, pp.111~ (1995)
- 배종대, "형법총론", 828~
- 오영근, "형법총론", pp.874~ (2002), 대명출판사
- 이천현, "형법각칙 개정연구(1): 형법각칙의 개정방향과 기본문제, 한국형사정책연구원", 37~ (2007)