국민 참여 형사재판제도의 정착을 위한 제언
A Suggestions for a Activation of the Civil Participation in Criminal Trial
0
조회
0
다운로드
8
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Even to look at the case of United States which can be called the country of Jury trial system, it has undergone a long historical course until the civil participation in the judicial process came to take root in the society. Thus, even if its success is not satisfactory, it’s not only not desirable to hastily jump to conclusions about the existence or removal of the system only by five years of experience and results over a short time of 5 years, but also it turns the intent and purpose to overcome the distrust and establish the true meaning of the judicial sovereignty of the people into inaction. Japan's failed trial by jury gives us the lesson. We can find the real cause of their failure not in the formal aspect on the surface that the effect of verdict was advisory, but rather in the substantial aspect that in fact the system itself was used for political purposes and, moreover, the failure was largely due to the phenomenon of three legal parties’ avoiding, whether actively or passively, and in the fact that the system had been neglected out side of the interests of the people who are the real participating subject in it. In order not to trace on such Japan's step, sufficient social discussions and consensus on the form of civil participating trial should be made until the point of finishing the first step of plan. In addition, the attitude to understand the legal nature of institutions and norms as the temporary or transitional one with limited time also plays the role of making the survival of the system too opaque. But it should be kept in mind that there doesn’t exist the stated provision of the legal basis of the system as the temporary law, and the way of reasoning on that basis is only the opinion suggested by 'juridical reformation commission', and that the existence of the system depends the public consciousness and awareness of public opinion, the three legal parties’ consensus, and the responsibility of criminal legislator entrusted to arrange them normatively.
Abstract
Even to look at the case of United States which can be called the country of Jury trial system, it has undergone a long historical course until the civil participation in the judicial process came to take root in the society. Thus, even if its success is not satisfactory, it’s not only not desirable to hastily jump to conclusions about the existence or removal of the system only by five years of experience and results over a short time of 5 years, but also it turns the intent and purpose to overcome the distrust and establish the true meaning of the judicial sovereignty of the people into inaction. Japan's failed trial by jury gives us the lesson. We can find the real cause of their failure not in the formal aspect on the surface that the effect of verdict was advisory, but rather in the substantial aspect that in fact the system itself was used for political purposes and, moreover, the failure was largely due to the phenomenon of three legal parties’ avoiding, whether actively or passively, and in the fact that the system had been neglected out side of the interests of the people who are the real participating subject in it. In order not to trace on such Japan's step, sufficient social discussions and consensus on the form of civil participating trial should be made until the point of finishing the first step of plan. In addition, the attitude to understand the legal nature of institutions and norms as the temporary or transitional one with limited time also plays the role of making the survival of the system too opaque. But it should be kept in mind that there doesn’t exist the stated provision of the legal basis of the system as the temporary law, and the way of reasoning on that basis is only the opinion suggested by 'juridical reformation commission', and that the existence of the system depends the public consciousness and awareness of public opinion, the three legal parties’ consensus, and the responsibility of criminal legislator entrusted to arrange them normatively.
참고문헌 (39)
- 고봉진, "형사재판에서 시민참여", 법학논총, 28(4), pp.309~329 (2011), 법학연구소
- 김병수, "국민참여재판의 활성화 방안에 관한 연구", 형사정책, 23(1), pp.35~64 (2011), 한국형사정책학회
- 김봉수, "국민참여재판의 개시요건에 대한 고찰- 「대상사건의 축소」와「절차회부의 의무화」를 중심으로 -", 형사정책, 23(1), pp.9~34 (2011), 한국형사정책학회
- 김혜정, "국민참여재판제도의 시행평가와 몇 가지 쟁점에 대한 개선방안", 영남법학, 32 (2011), 영남대학교 법학연구소
- 김희균, "증인의 신용성 판단기일의 도입에 관한 연구", 홍익법학, 11(1), pp.331~354 (2010), 법학연구소
- 단성한, "배심재판에서의 법관, 검사, 변호인의 지위 및 역할변화", 비교형사법연구, 9(2), pp.1~36 (2007), 한국비교형사법학회
- 도중진, "배심원의 권한과 의무", 비교형사법연구, 9(2), pp.37~82 (2007), 한국비교형사법학회
- 부산지방법원, "소말리아 해적 사건 국민참여재판 백서" (2012)
- 박미숙, "국민참여재판의 시행성과와 향후과제", 형사정책연구, 21(2), pp.135~174 (2010), 한국형사정책연구원
- 형사정책과 사법개혁에 관한 조사ㆍ연구 및 평가(II)-국민 참여재판에대한 참관 및 조사연구, "박미숙", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2008)
- 사법개혁위원회, "사법개혁위원회 자료집(Ⅱ)" (2004)
- 신동운, "한국 형사사법의 개혁과 전망", 비교형사법연구, 8(1(2)), pp.1~30 (2006), 한국비교형사법학회
- 오정용, "일본의 검찰심사회제도를 통해 본 또 하나의 시민의 사법참여", 형사법연구, 23(3), pp.337~368 (2011), 한국형사법학회
- 이동희, "국민참여재판의 시행상황 분석과 나아갈 방향 -최종모델 결정에 있어서의 주요쟁점 검토를 중심으로-", 형사정책, 23(1), pp.91~124 (2011), 한국형사정책학회
- 이춘화, "성폭력범죄에 대한 국민참여재판의 문제점과 개선방안", 형사정책, 23(1), pp.65~90 (2011), 한국형사정책학회
- 장중식, "우리나라 국민참여재판제도의 문제점과 개선과제", 법학연구, (36), pp.401~422 (2009), 한국법학회
- 윤영철, "검사의 기소재량권에 대한 통제제도의 현황과 사전적·민주적 통제방안에 관한 소고", 법학논고, (30), pp.315~352 (2009), 법학연구원
- 재판전 단계에서의 국민참여방안에 관한 연구, "윤지영", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2011)
- 차정인, "항소심의 제1심 국민참여재판 판결 파기", 법학연구, 51(1), pp.103~135 (2010), 법학연구소
- 형사정책과 사법제도에 관한 연구(V)-국민참여재판제도의 평가와정책화 방안-, "탁희성", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2011)
- 허일태, "형법연구Ⅵ" (2012), 동아대학교 출판부
- 한인섭, "한국의 배심원재판 －준비과정과 시행원년의 성과를 검토한다－", 서울대학교 법학, 50(2), pp.681~710 (2009), 법학연구소
- 황일호, "국민참여재판의 중간평가와 향후과제", 중앙법학, 13(3), pp.273~310 (2011), 중앙법학회
- 井上毅, "治罪法備攷下篇第3卷" (1878), 警視局蔵版
- 大川真郎, "日弁連の長く困難なたたかい", 朝日新聞社, ~ (2007)
- 太田雅夫, "陪審制の復興" (2000), 信山社
- 岡原昌男, "陪審法ノ停止ニ関スル法律に就て", 法曹会雑誌, 21(4) (1943)
- 刑法理論史の総合的硏究, "吉川経夫外", 日本評論社, ~ (1994)
- 木村朗, "裁判員制度における人権侵害の落とし穴", 立命館法学, 333(334) (2010), 立命館大学
- 我が国で行われた陪審裁判－昭和初期における陪審法の運用について－, "最高裁判所事務総局刑事局", 司法協会, ~ (1995)
- 武田宣英, "日本陪審法論" (1928), 有斐閣
- 中原精一, "-明治憲法下の陪審制と憲法論-", 法律論叢, 61(4) (1989), 明治大学法律研究所
- 長尾一紘, "裁判員制度と日本国憲法", 現代刑事法, 32 (2001), 現代法律出版
- 牧野英一, "陪審法案について", 法学志林, 28(2) (1926)
- 牧野英一, "陪審問題に就て", 国家学会雜誌, 24(4) (1910)
- 三谷太一郎, "政治制度としての陪審制" (2001), 東京大学出版会
- 丸田隆, "陪審裁判を考える" (1990), 中公新書
- 柳瀬昇, "裁判員法の立法過程(2)", 信州大学法学論集, 9 (2007), 信州大学
- 矢野祐子, "ボアソナードと, その法思想-陪審制度をめぐる一考察", 早稲田法学会誌, 47 (1997), 早稲田大学