양형의 합리화를 위한 판결전조사제도의 개선방안
A Study on Methods to Improve Presentence Investigation System for Rationalization of the Examination of an Offense
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Abstract
The human race has arranged various ways for fair and rational judgments on the examination of an offense. There are discussions in diverse perspectives on statement of objectives of a punishment, new principles of a punishment, improved treatment within society, a new short-term imprisonment system, establishment of a guideline on the examination of an offense, a conference for the examination of an offense, dichotomization of the procedure in a public trial, rationalization of the prosecutors demand of punishment, Presentence Investigation System, and so forth. This study focused on the Presentence Investigation System among various ways for rational judgment on the examination of an offense. Imposing a punishment on a person who socially infringed on the benefit and protection of the law is established through the examination of an offense of the judiciary based on criminal procedures. The procedure of an examination of an offense enables the judiciary to specifically determine the kind and amount of the punishment for the accused. While it is important not to victimize a innocent person with a punishment, the examination of an offense to decide which punishment shall be laid on the guilty can be more important. The Presentence Investigation System originates from sentencing by the judiciary based on scientific investigation into the accused by probation officers in the United States, which developed along with the Probation system. Various countries currently apply this widely. This is a system to scientifically investigate the personality and environment of the person found guilty in the criminal procedure and to use this as a basic material of the examination of an offense. Several problems arise in operation of the Presentence Investigation System. First, in terms of implementation, the limit of investigative workforce and time confines investigation only to interviews with the accused and the family while verification at the site or valuation by professionals do not properly take place. Second, while investigation takes place for adults and juveniles both in terms of implementation, legislatively, the subject and scope of the investigation before sentencing are limited to juvenile criminals that are subject to community treatment. Third, contents and forms of investigation are insufficient. Thus, methods to improve the Presentence Investigation System for rationalization of the examination of an offense include the following based on them. The institute for investigation before sentencing needs to have a sufficient budget and experts. The investigation shall be obligatory for not only the subject of community treatment but also all criminal offenses. The subject of investigation before sentencing shall be extended to adult criminals in terms of legislation. Forms and contents of investigation shall be more professionalized. Also rationalization shall be promoted by having the point of time for the Presentence Investigation begin after decision of guiltiness.
참고문헌 (41)
- 강남주, "현행판결전조사제도에 관한 고찰", 사법논총, 36 (2003)
- 김선주, "보호관찰제도에 관한 연구", 경남법학, 4 (1988)
- 김성환, "우리 양형체계에 관한 비판적 고찰", 목원대학교 법학논총, ~ (1995)
- 김신호, "성인범에 대한 판결전조사제도 전면도입을 위한 연구", 박사, pp.2008
- 김혜경, "법정형 체계의 정비방안", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2006)
- 남선모, "양형의 합리화 방안에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.1998
- 문희태, "우리나라 양형의 실태와 합리화 방안", 박사, pp.2006
- 박상기, "형의 집행유예에 관한 연구", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (1993)
- 박상기, "형사정책", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (1999)
- 박홍우, "미국 연방의 양형기준제도", 법원행정처, ~ (2002)
- 배종대, "형사정책" (2006), 홍문사
- 서울보호관찰소, "판결전조사 사례연구집", ~ (1999)
- 손동권, "범행비례적 양형론에 관한 연구", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2006)
- 오병주, "양형의 실태 및 합리화방안에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2000
- 오병주, "형의 집행유예 및 양형의 적정성 확보방안에 관한 검토", 법무연구, ~ (1999)
- 오영근, "양형의 합리화에 관한 연구", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (1993)
- 윤승운, "특정범죄가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 적용상의 문제점과 대안", 한국형사법학회 추계학술대회 자료집 (2006)
- 이상철, "판결전조사제도에 관한 연구", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (1994)
- 이재상, "형법총론" (2008), 박영사
- 이정국, "판결전조사제도의 확대 도입 방안", 고시연구, ~ (2005)
- 이창한, "판결전조사제도의 비교법적 고찰", 보호, 12 (2001), 법무부
- 이천현, "양형 관련규정의 정비방안", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2006)
- 이형재, "판결전조사제도의 유용성에 관한 고찰", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (1999)
- 이형재, "판결전조사제도의 유용성과 확대시행 방안연구", 보호, 10 (1999)
- 이호중, "양형기준제의 도입과 양형위원회의 설치", 사개추위 제2차 양형토론회 자료, ~ (2005)
- 최병각, "양형의 과정과 통제", 형사정책연구, 11(3) (2000), 한국형사정책연구원
- 최석윤, "양형의 형벌이론적 기초와 합리화방안", 박사, pp.1996
- 최석윤, "판결전조사제도", 형사정책, 12(2) (2000)
- 최정학, "양형의 규범논리", 형사정책, 17(2), pp.251~279 (2005), 한국형사정책학회
- 최준, "합리적 양형구조에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2006
- 하태훈, "양형기준과 양형과정의 합리화방안", 형사법연구, 9 (1996)
- Abadinsky,Howard, "Probation and Parole" (1994), Prentice-Hall
- Allen,Harry E, "Probation and Parole in America" (1992), The Free Press
- Baur,F, "Einfuhrung in das Recht Bundesrepublik Deutschland" (1982), Munchen
- Carmen,Rolando V, "Criminal Procedure-Law and Practice-" (1995), Wadsworth Publishing
- Easton,Susan, "Sentencing and Punishment", ~ (2005)
- Home Office, "national standard for the supervision of offenders in the community", ~ (1995)
- Homer,Charles T, "Group Procedures in Sentencing:A Decade of Practice", Federal Probation, ~ (1970)
- Koh,Steve Y, "Establishing the Federal Judge's Role in Sentencing", The Yale Law Journal, ~ (1992)
- McCarthy,Belinda R, "Community-Based Corrections" (1997), Wadsworth Publishing
- Seebald, "Ausgeglichene Strafzumessung durch tatrichterliche Selbstkontrolle", ~ (1974)
