본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Attempts at Fair Sentencing in the United States and Korea:A Historical View of Sentencing Guidelines and Mandatory Minimums in Two Vastly Different Criminal Justice Systems

에린머피
법학연구소 (The Institute of Legal Studies Konkuk University)|2015.02|법학연구|제56권 제1호|pp. 179-214

1

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

양형기준형사처벌Criminal Punishment연방양형기준Federal Sentencing GuidelinesSentencing GuidelinesJudicial DiscretionKorean Sentencing CommissionMandatory Minimums한국 양형위원회강제적 하한선사법 재량

초록

Since the 1970s, the United States has relied on Sentencing Guidelines and Mandatory Minimums to punish criminal defendants. The United States Sentencing Commission was created to help reduce sentencing disparity and create uniform sentencing in the federal criminal justice system. The implementation of the federal sentencing guidelines has resulted in numerous legislative and judicial battles and a drastic increase in the prison population. To decrease sentencing disparity, reduce prosecutorial favoritism and increase public trust in the criminal justice system, Korea has recently begun to implement the sentencing guidelines. In 2007, the Korean Sentencing Commission was created. Korea has chosen to implement the gradual and narrative model of sentencing guidelines rather than the “grid” model that the United States uses. This article will explore the history and results of the 40 years of United States sentencing guidelines and the emergence of the Korean sentencing guidelines and compare the two. Korea, a country with a nearly racially homogeneous population, a criminal justice system that does not engage in plea bargaining, and a comparatively low percentage of drug crimes system to the United States will not face some of the problems that the United States criminal justice system faces. Despite these differences, Korea is moving away from judicial discretion and can look to the past in the United States as a way to see the effects of lessened judicial discretion. By balancing the desire for conformity in sentencing with the need for judicial discretion and taking the gradual and narrative approach to sentencing guidelines, it is hopeful that Korea will avoid many of these problems and will not suffer from increased incarceration or any of the other problems that the United States has faced in the past 40 years.

Abstract

Since the 1970s, the United States has relied on Sentencing Guidelines and Mandatory Minimums to punish criminal defendants. The United States Sentencing Commission was created to help reduce sentencing disparity and create uniform sentencing in the federal criminal justice system. The implementation of the federal sentencing guidelines has resulted in numerous legislative and judicial battles and a drastic increase in the prison population. To decrease sentencing disparity, reduce prosecutorial favoritism and increase public trust in the criminal justice system, Korea has recently begun to implement the sentencing guidelines. In 2007, the Korean Sentencing Commission was created. Korea has chosen to implement the gradual and narrative model of sentencing guidelines rather than the “grid” model that the United States uses. This article will explore the history and results of the 40 years of United States sentencing guidelines and the emergence of the Korean sentencing guidelines and compare the two. Korea, a country with a nearly racially homogeneous population, a criminal justice system that does not engage in plea bargaining, and a comparatively low percentage of drug crimes system to the United States will not face some of the problems that the United States criminal justice system faces. Despite these differences, Korea is moving away from judicial discretion and can look to the past in the United States as a way to see the effects of lessened judicial discretion. By balancing the desire for conformity in sentencing with the need for judicial discretion and taking the gradual and narrative approach to sentencing guidelines, it is hopeful that Korea will avoid many of these problems and will not suffer from increased incarceration or any of the other problems that the United States has faced in the past 40 years.

참고문헌 (91)

  1. "Korean Criminal Procedure Act", ~
  2. "Korean Court Organizational Act, art 82.2", ~
  3. "Ala.Code §§12-25-1 to 12-25-12", ~
  4. "Alaska Stat. §12.55.125(c) to (e)", ~
  5. "Ark.Code Ann. §§16-90-801 to 16-90-804", ~
  6. "Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. §54-300", ~
  7. "Del.Code Ann. tit.11, §§6580 to 6581A", ~
  8. "Fla.Stat. Ann. §§921.001 to 921.00265", ~
  9. "Ill. Comp.Stat.Ann. ch.730, §§5", 5-5-3.1, 5, -5-3.2[DOI]
  10. "Kan.Stat.Ann. §§21-6801 to 21-6828", ~
  11. "La.Rev. Stat.Ann. §§15:321 to 15:324", ~
  12. "Md.Crim.Pro. §§6-201 to 6-216", ~
  13. "Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. ch.211E, §§1-4", ~
  14. "Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. ch. 777", ~
  15. "Minn.Stat.Ann. ch.244 App", ~
  16. "Mo.Ann.Stat.§558.019", ~
  17. "N.C.Gen. Stat. §§15A-1340.13 to 1340.17", ~
  18. "Ohio Rev. Code ann. §§181.21 to 181.56", ~
  19. "Ore.Rev.Stat.§§137.667 to 137.671", ~
  20. "Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 42, §§2151-2156", ~
  21. "S.C. Code §§24-26-10 to 24-26-60", ~
  22. "Tenn.Code Ann. §§40-35-101 to 40-35-122", ~
  23. "Utah Code Ann. §§63-25a-301 to 63-25a-306", ~
  24. "Va.Code §§17.1-800 to 17.1-806, 19.2-298.01", ~
  25. "S. 2699, 94th Cong., 121 CONG. REC. 37,563", ~ (1976)
  26. "95th Cong., 123 CONG. REC. 13,061–69", ~ (1977)
  27. "96th Cong., 125 CONG. REC. 23,537–45; Criminal Code Reform Act of 1977, S. 1437", ~ (1980)
  28. "97th Cong., 128 CONG. REC. 11,817–24 ; Criminal Code Reform Act of 1979, S. 1722", ~ (1982)
  29. "Violent Crime and Drug Enforcement Improvement Act of 1982, S. 2572", ~ (1982)
  30. "668, 98th Cong., 129 CONG. REC. 3,797–814 (1983)", ~ (1983)
  31. "S. 829, 98th Cong. ; see also Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1983, S. 829", ~ (1983)
  32. "98th Cong., 129 CONG. REC. 5520, 5521–71", ~ (1983)
  33. "S. REP. NO. 98-225, at 40", ~ (1983)
  34. "Pub. L. No. 98-473, tit. II, 98 Stat. 1987 (codified in scattered sections of 18 and 28 U.S.C.)", ~ (1987)
  35. U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, "SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ON THE INITIAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES AND POLICY STATEMENTS 1–2", ~ (1987)
  36. , 1995
  37. , 1997
  38. , 2002, ~
  39. "Drug Sentencing Reform Act of 2001, S. 1874, 107th Cong", ~ (2001)
  40. "Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003", ~
  41. "Pub. L. No. 99-570, tit. I, § 1002, 100 Stat. 3207, 3207-2 to 3207-4 (codified at 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)–(C))", ~ (2006)
  42. "Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372", ~ (2010)
  43. U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, "Special Report to the Congress: Continuing Impact of United States v. Booker on Federal Sentencing" (2012)
  44. "2013 Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual"[URL]
  45. "U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual", ~ (2013)
  46. "US Sentencing Commission Votes to Reduce Drug Trafficking Sentences" (2014)[URL]
  47. "Frequently Asked Questions: Retroactive Application of the 2014 Drug Guidelines Amendment"[URL]
  48. "An Overview of the United States Sentencing Commission"[URL]
  49. "Gall v. United States, 552 US 38", ~ (2007)
  50. "Kimbrough v. United States 552 U.S. 85", ~ (2007)
  51. "United States v. Booker, 543 US 220", ~ (2005)
  52. Stephanos Bibas, "The Feeney Amendment and the Continuing Rise of Prosecutorial Power to Plea Bargain", J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY, 94, pp.295~297 (2004)
  53. Frank O. Bowman, III, "Dead Law Walking: The Surprising Tenacity of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines", Houston L. Rev, 51, pp.1227~ (2014)
  54. "Black’s Law Dictionary 1367", ~ (1999)
  55. Steven L. Chanenson, "Booker on Crack: Sentencing’s Latest Gordian Knot", Cornell J.L & Pub Pol’y, 15, pp.551~ (2006)
  56. Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Statutes, "Charles Doyle", ~, pp.CRS Report RS21598 (2013)
  57. Weekly Population Report (Oct. 16, 2014), "Federal Bureau of Prisons", ~ (2014)
  59. Fiedler Daniel Lee, "Sentencing Guidelines in South Korea: Lessons from the American Experience", Journal of Korean Law, 10(1), pp.111~141 (2010), 법학연구소
  60. FBI Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States 2011- Arrests, , ~ (2012)
  61. "Wicked Stepmothers Jailed, but not for Very Long" (2014)[URL]
  62. "Prisoners in 2010"[URL]
  63. "4 Biggest Myths About Crack" (2013)[URL]
  64. Donna M. Hartman, "The Social Construction of the Crack Epidemic in the Print Media", Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 31 (1999)
  65. Human Rights Watch, "An Offer You Can’t Refuse, How US Federal Prosecutors Force Drug Defendants to Plead Guilty", December 2013, ~ (2013)
  66. "Human Rights Watch interview with former federal prosecutor (name withheld)", New York, New York, May 19, 2013, ~ (2013)
  67. "First “Severe” Punishment for Business Tycoon after the Implementation of the “Sentencing Guidelines”" (2014)[URL]
  68. "A Brief Look at Sentencing Factors in South Korean Courts" (2014)[URL]
  69. "Top Court Confirms Jail Term for SK Chairman’s Ex-advisor" (2014)[URL]
  70. Sangjoon Kim, "Judge-Jury Agreement in Criminal Cases: The First Three Years of the Korean Jury System", Journal of Emperical Legal Studies, 10, pp.35~39 (2013)
  71. "Statement of Harley G. Lappin, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies 1" (2011)[URL]
  72. "The Sentencing Project, On Trends in Sentencing and Incarceration, Testimony before the U.S. Nevada Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice"[URL]
  73. "Fed. Pub. Defender, E. Dist. of Va., The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984: 25 Years Later, Testimony before the U.S. Sentencing Commission" (2009)[URL]
  74. Ilene H. Nagel, "Foreword, Structuring Sentencing Discretion: The New Federal Sentencing Guidelines", J. Crim L. & Criminology, 80, pp.883~ (1990)
  75. National Research Council, "The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences", pp.47~55 (2014)
  76. Joe Palazzolo, "Racial Gap in Men’s Sentencing", The Wall Street Journal, February 14, 2013, ~ (2013)
  77. Hyung Kwan Park, "The Basic Features of the First Korean Sentencing Guidelines", Fed. Sent’g Rep, 22, pp.262~ (2009)
  78. "Pew Ctr. on the States, One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008, Pew Charitable Trusts 3" (2008)[URL]
  79. "Korea to Adopt Plea Bargaining" (2008)[URL]
  80. Jed S. Rakoff, "Why Innocent People Plead Guilty", The New York Review of Books, November 20, 2014, ~ (2014)
  81. John Riley, "Criminal Code Reform Picks Up Steam", Nat’l L.J. (1983)
  82. Paul H. Robinson, "A Sentencing System for the 21st Century?", Texas Law Review, 66, pp.1~ (1987)
  83. "South Korean Legal System to Introduce Plea Bargaining, Asian Correspondent" (2009)[URL]
  84. Erik S. Siebert, "The Process is the Problem: Lessons Learned from United States Drug Sentencing Reform", Univ. of Richmond L. Rev, pp.44~ (2010)
  85. Sonja B. Starr, "Mandatory Sentencing and Racial Disparity: Assessing the Role of Prosecutors and the Effects of Booker", Yale L.J, 123, pp.2~ (2013)
  86. "The Politics of Sentencing Reform: The Legislative History of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Faculty Scholarship Series (Yale University), Paper 1273" (1993)[URL]
  87. "Why 97% of Federal Drug Offenders Plead Guilty" (2013)[URL]
  88. "Proceedings, Criminal Case"[URL]
  89. Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, Narcotics Division, "Drug Control in Korea 2012", Narcotics and Organized Crimes Department, ~ (2012)
  90. Christopher Zoukis, "USSC Unanimously Votes for Drug Reduction Retroactivity: Thousands of Federal Prisoners to be Released Early", Huffington Post, July 23, 2014, ~ (2014)

관련 논문AI추천

Sentencing Guidelines in South Korea: Lessons from the American ExperienceFiedler Daniel Lee아시아태평양법연구소 · Journal of Korean Law2010 · 제10권 제1호의무적 양형제도에 관한 고찰김종구한국형사정책학회 · 형사정책2008 · 제20권 제2호우리나라의 양형기준에 대한 비판적 분석이호중한국형사법학회 · 형사법연구2010 · 제22권 제1호대법원 양형기준에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 피고인의 이익에 부합하는 양형기준의 해석을 중심으로 -강우예한국형사법학회 · 형사법연구2012 · 제24권 제1호양형기준의 시행에 대한 평가와 개선방향서보학한국형사법학회 · 형사법연구2011 · 제23권 제4호합리적 양형기준을 위한 공통된 양형인자 도출의 필요성 - 제 2기 양형위원회 양형기준 대상범죄 양형인자 도출의 통일성 위한 비교법적 고찰을 중심으로 -승재현법학연구소 · 외법논집2010 · 제34권 제3호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (12건)

국민의 안전을 위한 법치행정의 방향김명길pp. 1-31행정법상 주관적 공권의 기본문제 - 독일에서의 논의를 중심으로 -이상학pp. 33-62도로의 설치·관리의 하자에 관한 비교법적 고찰 - 일본과 한국의 판례를 중심으로 -박현숙pp. 63-89공공기관의 지방이전에 따른 개정 행정소송법 제9조 제2항의 재판관할 문제 - 실무 사례를 중심으로 -표정우pp. 91-116국회입법상 불법에 대한 국가배상책임에 관한 고찰박정배pp. 117-142
원문 보기