본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

심신상실 판단 기준의 명확화를 위한 시도 - 한·미 비교를 통한 맥나튼 룰 도입 가능성 제고-

Effort for the Clearness of Insanity Test

정재준
한국비교형사법학회 (Korean Association Of Comparative Criminal Law)|2011.12|비교형사법연구 (Korean Journal of Comparative Criminal Law)|제13권 제2호|pp. 461-490|DOI 10.23894/kjccl.2011.13.2.020

0

조회

0

다운로드

9

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

심신장애감정Criminal responsibilityInsanity형사책임능력모범형법전Model Penal CodeExpert opinion맥나튼 룰M‘Naghten Rules
주제분류법학

초록

Although definitions of legal insanity differ from state to state, generally a person is considered insane and is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of the offense, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Insanity defense is an important legal matter that criminal acts by psychopaths are related with the most of violent crime. Furthermore, according to the result of insanity defense one can be sentenced to death in South Korea. The Korean Criminal Law has the characteristics of Continental law. Nevertheless, the Korean Criminal Law cannot create the clear and concrete version unlike German Criminal Law that we could apply to the cases on insanity defence. Most countries have tried to provide rational provisions to identify insanity defence. The effort for the better direction about insanity defense and evaluate test instrument has been shown in England and United States' history. The history of the insanity defense in modern times comes from the 1843 case of Daniel M'Naghten, who tried to assassinate the prime minister of Britain and was found not guilty because he was insane at the time. The public outrage after his acquittal prompted the creation of a strict definition of legal insanity which is known as the M'Naghten Rule. In the Durham case in 1950s, the court ruled that a person was legally insane if he "would not have committed the criminal act but for the existence of a mental disease or defect." The Model Penal Code, published by the American Law Institute, provided a standard for legal insanity that was a compromise between the strict M'Naghten Rule and the lenient Durham ruling. Those of historical legal experience in U.K. and U.S. teach to Korean criminal justice system what is rational provisions to identify insanity defense. It is time to reform the Korean Criminal Law, article 10, to be clear on criminal insanity.

Abstract

Although definitions of legal insanity differ from state to state, generally a person is considered insane and is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of the offense, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Insanity defense is an important legal matter that criminal acts by psychopaths are related with the most of violent crime. Furthermore, according to the result of insanity defense one can be sentenced to death in South Korea. The Korean Criminal Law has the characteristics of Continental law. Nevertheless, the Korean Criminal Law cannot create the clear and concrete version unlike German Criminal Law that we could apply to the cases on insanity defence. Most countries have tried to provide rational provisions to identify insanity defence. The effort for the better direction about insanity defense and evaluate test instrument has been shown in England and United States' history. The history of the insanity defense in modern times comes from the 1843 case of Daniel M'Naghten, who tried to assassinate the prime minister of Britain and was found not guilty because he was insane at the time. The public outrage after his acquittal prompted the creation of a strict definition of legal insanity which is known as the M'Naghten Rule. In the Durham case in 1950s, the court ruled that a person was legally insane if he "would not have committed the criminal act but for the existence of a mental disease or defect." The Model Penal Code, published by the American Law Institute, provided a standard for legal insanity that was a compromise between the strict M'Naghten Rule and the lenient Durham ruling. Those of historical legal experience in U.K. and U.S. teach to Korean criminal justice system what is rational provisions to identify insanity defense. It is time to reform the Korean Criminal Law, article 10, to be clear on criminal insanity.

참고문헌 (95)

  1. 김일수, "형법총론(제11판)", pp.376~377 (2008), 박영사
  2. 오영근, "형법총론(제2판)", pp.410~ (2010), 박영사
  3. 노용우, "책임판단 능력에 있어서 심신장애의 의미", 형사법연구, (15), pp.57~ (2001)
  4. 신동일, "심신장애자 판정의 문제점과 비교법적 검토", 형사정책연구소식, (92), pp.18~ (2005)
  5. "국어 대백과사전"
  6. "대판 1992.8.18, 92도1425", ~
  7. 손동권, "형법총론", pp.297~ (2011), 율곡출판사
  8. 박광민, "형법총론(제5판)" (2011), 삼영사
  9. "치료감호법 제2조 1항 1호", ~
  10. "치료감호법 제18조", ~
  11. 신영호, "형사책임능력의 판단기준 - 특히 감정의와 법관의 관계설정을 중심으로 한 법해석론", 비교형사법연구, 3(1), pp.75~ (2001)
  12. 심신장애 판정의 문제점과 개선방안 - 각국의 제도 및 현황을 비교하여 -, , 한국형사정책연구원, 70~71 (2004)
  13. 최상섭, "한국에서의 범법정신질환자의 현황에 대한 연구: 법무부 치료감호소의 11년간의 통계적 고찰", 대한법의학회지, 22(2), pp.39~43 (1998)
  14. 손용근, "정신장애자와 사법절차 - 그 일반론 및 몇 가지 현실적인 문제점들 -", 신경정신의학, 32(1), pp.9~ (1993)
  15. 최윤정, "형사적 정신감정결과와 법원 판결에 관한 고찰", 신경정신의학, 37(5), pp.910~ (1998)
  16. 서혁교, "정신감정이 재판에 미치는 영향", 신경정신의학, 25(3), pp.415~ (1986)
  17. 오선주, "형사책임능력과 판단기준", 청주대 법학논고, pp.49~ (1983)
  18. Hans-Joachim Rauch, "Brauchen wir noch eine Forensische Psychiatrie? - Festischrift fur H. Leferenz", 395~ (1983)
  19. Torsten Verrel, "Die Verwertung von Schuldfähigkeitsgutachten im Strafurteil, In: ZStW 106", pp.353~ (1994)
  20. "대판 2007.2.8, 2006도7900", ~
  21. "대판 1992.1.18, 92도1425", ~
  22. "대판 1985.5.28, 85도361", ~
  23. "대판 1995.2.24. 94도3163", ~
  24. "대판 2005.12.9, 2005도7342", ~
  25. "대판 2002.11.8, 2002도5109", ~
  26. "대판 2002.5.24, 2002도1541", ~
  27. "대판 1999.4.27, 99도693", ~
  28. "대판 1999.1.26, 98도3812", ~
  29. "대판 1999.8.24, 99도1194", ~
  30. "대판 1998.3.13, 98도159", ~
  31. "대판 1997.7.25, 97도1142", ~
  32. "대판 1995.2.24, 94도3163", ~
  33. "대판 1996.5.10, 96도638", ~
  34. "대판 1994.5.13, 94도581", ~
  35. 신양균, "책임능력과 감정", 형사판례연구, 5, pp.63~ (1997)
  36. 박상식, "정신장애범죄자의 형사책임능력판단 기준에 관한 연구", 형사정책연구, 18(1), pp.103~144 (2007), 한국형사정책연구원
  37. 이재상, "형사소송법 제6판", pp.431~ (2007)
  38. Richard G. Singer, "Criminal Law (Fifth edition)", pp.421~ (2009), Wolters Kluwer
  39. Perlin, M. L, "The Hidden Prejudice: Mental Disability on Trial", pp.228~230 (2000), American Psychological Association
  40. Wayne R. Lafave, "Criminal Law (Second edition)", pp.276~277 (2010), West
  41. R.B. Brandt, "The Insanity Defense and the Theory of Motivation", Law & Phill, 7, pp.123~ (1988)
  42. Joshua Dressler, "Criminal Law (Fifth edition)", pp.345~ (2009), LexisNexis
  43. Herbert L. Packer, "The Limits of the Criminal Sanction", 132~ (1968)
  44. Michael S. Moore, "Causation and the Excuses", Cal. L. Rev, 73, pp.1091~1137 (1985)
  45. "Holloway v. United States, 148 F.2d 665 (D.C. Cir. 1945)", ~ (1945)
  46. "Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 453", ~ (1992)
  47. "Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402", ~ (1960)
  48. George P. Fletcher, "American Law", pp.532~ (2005)
  49. "Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385-386", ~ (1966)
  50. "U.S. Dept. of Justice, State Court Organization 1998 (NCJ 178932 2000)", 257~259
  51. "미국 모범형법전(Model Penal Code) § 4.06(1)", ~
  52. American Law Institute(ALI), "Comment to § 4.06", 241~242
  53. "Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348", ~ (1976)
  54. "Model Penal Code § 4.06(2)", ~
  55. "Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 731", ~ (1972)
  56. "미국 모범형법전(Model Penal Code) § 4.03(2)", ~
  57. "Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 12.2(a) 조항", ~
  58. "Model Penal Code § 4.05(1)", ~
  59. , 1966
  60. "State v. Johnson, 399 A.2d 469, 471 (R. I. 1979)", ~ (1979)
  61. American Law Institute, "Explanatory Note to § 4.01", 164~
  62. "McDonald v. United States, 312 F.2d 847, 851 (D.C. Cir. 1962)", ~ (1962)
  63. Bruce J. Winick, "Ambiguities in the Legal Meaning and Significance of Mental Illness", Psychology, Pub. Pol'y & L, 1, pp.534~ (1995)
  64. Richard J. Bonnie, "A case study in the insanity defense", pp.8~ (2008), Thomson West
  65. Rollin M. Perkins, "Criminal Law 960 (3d ed)", pp.186~187 (1982)
  66. Patricia E. Erickson, "Crime, Punishment, and Mental illness", Law and the behavioral Sciences in Conflict, Library of Congress Cataloging in publication Data, Manufactured in the U.S.A, pp.88~ (2008)
  67. Michael Stoll, "Miles To Go Before We Sleep: Arizona's "Guilty Except Insane" Approach to the Insanity Defense and Its Unrealized Promise", Geo. L.J, 97, pp.1772~ (2009)
  68. "M'Naghten's Case, 10 Cl. & F. 200, 8 Eng. Rep", 718~ (1843)
  69. Joshua Dressler, "Cases and Materials on Criminal Law (4th edition)", pp.625~626 (2008), Thomson West
  70. "Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 750-751", ~ (2006)
  71. "United States v. Freeman, 357 F.2d, 606, 618 (2d Cir. 1966)", ~ (1966)
  72. "United States v. Pollard, 171 F. Supp. 474, 478 (E.D. Mich. 1959)", ~ (1959)
  73. Rita J. Simon, "The insanity defense, The world over", pp.29~ (2008), A division of Rowman & Little field Publishersm INC
  74. "Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735, 751", ~ (2006)
  75. "Commonwealth v. Rogers, 48 Mass. 500, 502", ~ (1844)
  76. "Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577", ~ (1866)
  77. "Davis v. United States, 165 U.S. 373, 378", ~ (1897)
  78. 이창무, "형사책임능력 판단을 위한 심리학적 평가에 관한 고찰: 미국 형사사법체계를 중심으로", 형사정책, 17(2), pp.283~304 (2005), 한국형사정책학회
  79. "Durham v. United States, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 228, 214 F.2d 862", ~ (1954)
  80. "State v. Plante, 594 A.2d 1279, 1283", ~ (1991)
  81. "In re Rosenfield, 157 F. Supp. 18 (D.D.C. 1957)", ~ (1957)
  82. "Washington v. United States, 390 F.2d 444, 455-456 (D.C. Cir. 1967)", ~ (1967)
  83. "Model Penal Code § 4.01(1)", ~
  84. "New York State Penal Law Index"[URL]
  85. "United States v. John W. Hinckley Jr. 672 F2d 115", ~ (1982)
  86. "18 U.S.C. § 17(a)", ~ (2008)
  87. "State v. Thompson, 36 F. 2d, 548 (D.C. Cir.1929)", ~ (1929)
  88. "대판 1981.5.26, 81도1344", ~
  89. "대판 1982.7.27, 82도1014", ~
  90. "대판 1983.7.12, 83도1181", ~
  91. "대판 1984.4.24, 84도527", ~
  92. "대판 1985.8.20, 85도1235", ~
  93. Holly A. Miller, "Examining the Use of the M-FAST with Criminal Defendants Incompetent to Stand Trial", International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(3), pp.269~ (2004)
  94. Roger, R, "Malingering and deception among psychopaths", pp.269~284 (2000)
  95. 범법정신장애자 등에 대한 법적 처우에 관한 연구, "원범연", 한국형사정책연구원, 41~ (2003)

관련 논문AI추천

형사책임능력의 판단기준에 관한 고찰 - 미국의 정신이상항변을 중심으로 -성경숙법학연구원 · 성균관법학2010 · 제22권 제3호형법 제10조 제1항의 개선방안이상문한국경찰법학회 · 경찰법연구2008 · 제6권 제2호심신장애 판단과 감정박미숙한국형사판례연구회 · 형사판례연구2011 · 제19권 형법 제10조 제2항에 대한 비판적 고찰-비교법적 고찰을 통한 현행 제도에 대한 분석과 입법안의 검토 및 제안을 중심으로 -권영법한국형사법학회 · 형사법연구2013 · 제25권 제4호정신질환자의 범죄에서 책임능력 및 양형에의 영향 분석유진, 김윤신대한법의학회 · 대한법의학회지2022 · 제46권 제2호정신장애범죄자에 대한 치료처분제도의 개선방안: 미국의 치료법원의 도입을 중심으로성경숙한국형사법학회 · 형사법연구2010 · 제22권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (37건)

해석근거로서의 ‘법질서의 통일성’과 ‘형법의 독자성’변종필pp. 1-18과실범의 “정상의 주의”의 전제조건과 형법의 일반원칙김성돈pp. 19-40사형제도에 관한 법철학적인 고찰손미숙pp. 41-62강간죄 등 성폭력범죄의 구성요건에 대한 재검토 - 개정 아동청소년성보호법 및 성폭력특례법에 대한 비판적 검토와 함께 -김혜정pp. 63-87소비자 불매운동의 정당성 - 헌법적 허용한계와 형법적 규제의 타당성-우희숙pp. 89-111
원문 보기