본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

형벌의 철학적 기초 - 영미 형벌 정당화이론의 동향 -

Philosophical Foundations of Punishment - focusing on New Trends of Punishment Theories in the USA and UK -

오세혁
중앙법학회 (Chung-Ang Law Association)|2012.09|중앙법학 (CHUNG_ANG LAW REVIEW)|제14권 제3호|pp. 7-40|DOI 10.21759/caulaw.2012.14.3.7

1

조회

0

다운로드

11

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

형벌정당화justificationutilitarianismconsequentialism결과주의공리주의punishment응보주의retributivism
주제분류법학

초록

How, if at all, the state is morally justified in subjecting an individual to criminal punishment? There are so many answers to the question. Although theorists have proposed and defended a staggering variety of punishment theories designed to meet this justificatory challenge, it is conventional to group them into two camps: retributivism and utilitarianism. However, new trends of punishment theories have appeared in the USA and UK last half century. The overall trend in theory is clear. After the mid-1960s utilitarian theories of punishment entered a long and steep decline. Crowding out utilitarian theories were modified retributive theories or hybrid punishment theories. We now seem to have enough theories of punishment. What we need is the analysis and evaluation of existing theories rather than the suggestion of another punishment theory. So, we seem to need a canonical statement of explicit criteria of adequacy. At a minimum, a theory of punishment should explain: 1) Why establishing an institution of punishment is morally permissible; 2) Why we should maintain such an institution?; 3) What implications the theory has for practice?; 4) How the theory helps us to resolve various questions of punishment?What justifies criminal punishments? The philosophy of criminal law is necessary to answer to the question. In sum, the criminal law needs philosophical analysis and reflection. The philosophy of criminal law is a rich and varied domain of legal philosophy. As a legal philosopher, I dream a renaissance of philosophy of criminal law.

Abstract

How, if at all, the state is morally justified in subjecting an individual to criminal punishment? There are so many answers to the question. Although theorists have proposed and defended a staggering variety of punishment theories designed to meet this justificatory challenge, it is conventional to group them into two camps: retributivism and utilitarianism. However, new trends of punishment theories have appeared in the USA and UK last half century. The overall trend in theory is clear. After the mid-1960s utilitarian theories of punishment entered a long and steep decline. Crowding out utilitarian theories were modified retributive theories or hybrid punishment theories. We now seem to have enough theories of punishment. What we need is the analysis and evaluation of existing theories rather than the suggestion of another punishment theory. So, we seem to need a canonical statement of explicit criteria of adequacy. At a minimum, a theory of punishment should explain: 1) Why establishing an institution of punishment is morally permissible; 2) Why we should maintain such an institution?; 3) What implications the theory has for practice?; 4) How the theory helps us to resolve various questions of punishment?What justifies criminal punishments? The philosophy of criminal law is necessary to answer to the question. In sum, the criminal law needs philosophical analysis and reflection. The philosophy of criminal law is a rich and varied domain of legal philosophy. As a legal philosopher, I dream a renaissance of philosophy of criminal law.

참고문헌 (66)

  1. 박상기, "형사정책(제11판)" (2010), 한국형사정책연구원
  2. 이재상, "형법총론 제6신판" (2010), 박영사
  3. 장석무, "R. A. Duff의 소통적 속죄 형벌이론에 관한 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.2011
  4. 최정학, "앤드류 폰 히르쉬의 형벌이론―신자유주의 형벌이론에 대한 비판―", 민주법학, (28), pp.264~275 (2005), 민주주의법학연구회
  5. Adler, J., "The Urgings of Conscience: A Theory of Punishment" (1991), Temple UP
  6. Alexander, L., "The Philosophy of Criminal Law, In The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law", pp.815~867 (2002), Oxford UP
  7. Bedau, H., "Retribution and the Theory of Punishment", Journal of Philosophy, 75, pp.601~620 (1978)
  8. Benn, S., "An Approach to the Problems of Punishment", Philosophy, 33, pp.325~341 (1958)
  9. Benn, S., "Punishment, In Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 7", pp.29~36 (1967), Macmillan
  10. Bennett, C., "Taking the sincerity out of saying sorry: Restorative justice as ritual", Journal of Applied Philosophy, 23, pp.377~395 (2006)
  11. Berman, M., "Punishment and Justification", Ethics, 118, pp.258~290 (2008)
  12. Berman, M., "The Justification of Punishment, In The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law", pp.141~156 (2012), Routledge
  13. Berman, M., "Two Kinds of Retributivism, In Philosophical Foundations of Criminal Law", pp.433~457 (2011), Oxford UP
  14. Boonin, D., "The Problem of Punishment" (2008), Cambridge UP
  15. Braithwaite, J., "Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation" (2002), Oxford UP
  16. Brownlee, K., "Where is the Love? The Topography of Mercy, In Crime, Punishment, and Responsibility: The Jurisprudence of Antony Duff", pp.54~67 (2011), Oxford UP
  17. Cottingham, J., "Varieties of Retribution", Philosophical Quaterly, 29, pp.238~246 (1979)
  18. Cragg, W., "The Practice of Punishment: Toward a Theory of Restorative Justice" (1992), Routledge
  19. Cragg, W., "Punishment, In The Philosophy of Law. An Encyclopedia", pp.706~709 (1999), Garland
  20. Cruft, R., "Crime, Punishment, and Responsibility: The Jurisprudence of Antony Duff" (2011), Oxford UP
  21. Davis, M., "Criminal Desert and Unfair Advantage: What’s the Connection?", Law and Philosophy, 12, pp.133~156 (1993)
  22. Davis, M., "Punishment Theory’s Golden Half Century: A Survey of Develpments from (about) 1957 to 2007", The Journal of Ethics, 13, pp.73~100 (2009)
  23. Davis, M., ", In Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd ed, vol. 8", pp.168~170 (2006), Macmillan
  24. Deigh, J, "The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Criminal Law" (2011), Oxford UP
  25. Dolinko, D, "Some thoughts about retributivism", Ethics, 101, pp.537~559 (1991)
  26. Dolinko, D, "Punishment, In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Criminal Law", pp.403~440 (2011), Oxford UP
  27. Duff, R.A., "Trials and Punishment" (1986), Cambridge UP
  28. Duff, R.A., "Punishment, Communication, and Community" (2001), Oxford UP
  29. Duff, R.A., "The Structures of the Criminal Law" (2011), Oxford UP
  30. Duff, R.A., "Philosophical Foundations of Criminal Law" (2011), Oxford UP
  31. Feinberg, J., "The Expressive Function of Punishment", The Monist, 49, pp.397~408 (1965)
  32. Feinberg, J, "Philosophy of Law, 5th ed" (1995), Wadsworth
  33. Fletcher, G, "Rethinking Criminal Law" (1978), Little, Brown
  34. Flew, A, "The Justification of Punishment", Philosophy, 29, pp.291~307 (1954)
  35. Garvey, S, "Alternatives to Punishment, In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Criminal Law", pp.493~519 (2011), Oxford UP
  36. Geschneider, G., "Psychological measurement of the judged seriousness of crimes and severity of punishment", Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 19, pp.275~278 (1982)
  37. Hampton, J., "The moral education theory of punishment", Philosophy and Public Affair, 13, pp.208~238 (1984)
  38. Hart, H.L.A., "Punishment and Resposibility" (1968), Clarendon Press
  39. Hühn, H., "Strafe, In Historische Wörterbuch der Philosophie, Bd.10", pp.208~261 (1998), Schwabe&Co
  40. Husak, D., "Why punish the deserving?", Nous, 26, pp.447~464 (1992)
  41. Husak, D., "Overcriminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law" (2008), Oxford UP
  42. Katz, L., "Criminal Law, In A Companion to Philosophy of Law", pp.80~95 (1996), Blackwell
  43. Kleinig, J, "Punishment and Desert" (1973), Martinus Nijhoff
  44. Mabbott, J., "Punishment", Mind, 48, pp.152~167 (1939)
  45. Matravers, .M., "Justice and Punishment: The Rationale of Coercion" (2000), Oxford UP
  46. McCloskey, H., "An Examination of Restricted Utilitarianism", Philosophical Review, 66, pp.466~485 (1957)
  47. Montague, P., "Punishment as societal defense" (1995), Rowman&Littlefield
  48. Moore, M., "Placing Blame" (1997), Oxford UP
  49. Morris, H., "Persons and Punishment", The Monist, 52, pp.475~501 (1968)
  50. Morris, H., "A Paternalistic Theory of Punishment", American Philosophical Quarterly, 18, pp.263~271 (1981)
  51. Murphy, J., "Three mistakes about retribution", Analysis, 31, pp.166~169 (1971)
  52. Murphy, J, "Forgiveness and Mercy" (1988), Cambridge UP
  53. Nozick, R, "Philosophical Explanations" (1981), Oxford UP
  54. Primoratz, I, "Punishment as language", Philosophy, 64, pp.187~205 (1989)
  55. Quinton, A., "On Punishment", Analysis, 14, pp.133~143 (1954)
  56. Rawls, J., "Two concepts of rules", Philosophical Review, 64, pp.3~32 (1955)
  57. Reiff, M., "Punishment, compensation, and law: A theory of enforceability" (2005), Cambridge UP
  58. Reiff, M, "Antony Duff and the Philosophy of Punishment, In Crime, Punishment, and Responsibility: The Jurisprudence of Antony Duff", pp.3~24 (2011), Oxford UP
  59. Sadurski, W, "Giving Desert Its Due" (1985), Reidel
  60. Ten, C, "Crime, Guilt, and Punishment" (1987), Oxford UP
  61. Von Hirsch, A, "Censure and sanctions" (1993), Oxford UP
  62. Von Hirsch, A, "Doing Justice: The Choice of Punishment" (1976), Hill and Wang
  63. Walker, M., "Restorative justice and reparations", Journal of Social Philosophy, 37, pp.377~395 (2006)
  64. Walker, N., "Even More Varieties of Retribution", Philosophy, 74, pp.595~605 (1999)
  65. Wood, D., "Retribution, Crime Reduction and the Justification of Punishment", Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 22, pp.301~321 (2002)
  66. Zaibert, L., "Punishment and Retribution" (2006), Ashgate

관련 논문AI추천

형벌의 의미와 정당성 - 언제나 형벌은 필요한가? -송경석, 이보영사단법인 법조협회 · 법조2011 · 제60권 제5호What is the Final Goal of Punishment and Forgiveness?송선영한국윤리학회 · 倫理硏究2015 · 제1권 제101호형사제재의 다양화와 형법의 기능이승호한국형사법학회 · 형사법연구2012 · 제24권 제3호강벌주의 입법과 형사정책 경향에 대한 연구이종혁법학연구소 · 아주법학2022 · 제16권 제2호응보주의 형벌론과 교정 정의조극훈아시아교정포럼 · 교정담론2021 · 제15권 제1호로크의 사형론과 형사정책적 함의안진한국법정책학회 · 법과정책연구2010 · 제10권 제1호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (10건)

양심의 구조와 기능이동희pp. 41-68드워킨의『법의 제국』에 대한 니체 철학적 의문민윤영pp. 69-93헌재 2011. 5. 26. 2010헌마451 결정(선거방송토론회 사건)에 대한 판례평석- 평등권과 평등선거원칙의 관계를 중심으로 -한수웅pp. 95-141‘집회의 자유’의 헌법적 보장- 헌법재판소 결정의 논증 비판 -신우철pp. 143-172나대지에 저당권을 설정한 후 저당목적물의 담보가치를 확보하기 위한 지상권의 효력- 담보지상권의 유효여부와 토지저당권자의 보호방안을 중심으로 -김현선pp. 173-212
원문 보기