open access
메뉴늘어가는 아동·청소년 성폭력 범죄를 해결하기 위해 우리나라는 많은 제도와 법률을 꾸준히 도입하고 개정하며 노력해왔지만, 성폭력은 여전히 증가하고 흉포화되는 추세이다. 이는 범죄자 처벌에만 중점을 둔 정책의 결과를 반영하는 것으로, 지금까지 우리나라는 경찰 수사력의 효율성, 유죄 입증력의 향상, 성폭력 피해 예방을 위한 정책 마련에는 노력이 미미하였다. 이에 본 연구는 아동·청소년 성범죄 재범을 예방하기 위한 경찰의 대응방안을 모색하기 위하여 아동·청소년 성범죄의 특성을 분석하고, 이에 대응하는 우리나라의 형사사법체계의 문제점을 파악하고자 한다. 더불어 외국의 경우 어떠한 제도를 도입하여 아동음란물과 온라인 성매매에 대처하는지 알아보고, 성범죄자 정보 관리와 수사기법 도입, 민간단체와의 협력을 통해 성폭력에 대한 경찰 수사력과 유죄 입증력을 향상시키는 방안을 모색해본다.
Although Korean government has been trying to resolve the sex crime against children, adolescents, disabled people, and adult women, sex crime has been still increasing and more brutalized. The main cause would be the policy that only focuses on punishment, not prevention or police investigation. To figure out how police can deals effectively with sex crime, this study first examines the characteristics of each different types of sex crime, such as sex crime against children, adolescents, and typical form of sex offenses. Next, this study investigates how another countries, such as USA and UK, make an endeavor to enhance efficiency of police investigation and conviction rates. In addition, we introduces Anti-grooming laws implemented in such countries in order to watch out sex crime against children even internet activities. Finally, this study sheds a light to policy makers and police investigators, who tries to reduce sex crime and to protect potential victims.
Risk assessment is a means of determining the ‘risk’ an offender poses in terms of future offending behavior. Against the backdrop of offenders repeating criminal acts and being reimprisoned, a case will be made here that by utilizing standardized, evidence-based risk assessment tools, an offender can be more effectively and efficiently treated and supported during the period of contact with the criminal justice system. To support this argument, this article starts with the evolution of risk assessment, and continues to describe the key model and empirical base driving this initiative, including the positive outcomes stemming from adhering to the principles of effective treatment, those of risk, need, and responsivity, as well as when using the Level of Service (LSI) instruments to predict general recidivism. While advising caution regarding instrument applicability to other populations, this review indicates that empirically-supported risk assessment tools can better service the offending client, the criminal justice professional, and the public at large.
Risk assessment is a means of determining the ‘risk’ an offender poses in terms of future offending behavior. Against the backdrop of offenders repeating criminal acts and being reimprisoned, a case will be made here that by utilizing standardized, evidence-based risk assessment tools, an offender can be more effectively and efficiently treated and supported during the period of contact with the criminal justice system. To support this argument, this article starts with the evolution of risk assessment, and continues to describe the key model and empirical base driving this initiative, including the positive outcomes stemming from adhering to the principles of effective treatment, those of risk, need, and responsivity, as well as when using the Level of Service (LSI) instruments to predict general recidivism. While advising caution regarding instrument applicability to other populations, this review indicates that empirically-supported risk assessment tools can better service the offending client, the criminal justice professional, and the public at large.
본 논문에서는 형사재판의 유무죄 판단기준(합리적 의심의 초월)을 질적, 양적으로 이해하기 위한 연구들을 중심으로 그 기준에 관한 실증과학적 관점을 고찰하고, 그 관점을 한국의 국민참여재판에서 나타나는 평결-판결 불일치의 의미를 해석하는데 적용하였다. 유무죄 판단기준에 관한 실증연구에서 두가지 함의가 도출되었는데, 첫째는 일반인들의 판단에 관한 실증과학적 이론과 지식에 기초하여 법관이 형사재판에서 판단하는 양식을 이해하는 것이 가능하다는 것이다. 둘째는 일반인이 법관보다 유죄판단을 위한 합리적 의심의 초월 기준을 다소 높게 설정하고, 그로 인하여 장기적으로 제1종 오류를 범할 가능성이 법관보다 더 낮을 가능성이 있은 반면, 법관은 장기적으로 제2종 오류를 범할 가능성이 일반인보다 더 낮을 가능성이 있다는 것이다. 이 함의들은 한국의 국민참여재판에서 발견되는 평결-판결 불일치의 양상과 일치하였다.
The present study analyzed the perspectives of empirical science toward the standard of proof for criminal trials (“Beyond Reasonable Doubt”) as reflected on the studies that have been conducted to understand the qualitative as well as quantitative meaning of the standard. From this analysis, two implications emerged: (1) The theories and knowledge acquired through psychological studies of lay individuals can be used to understand judicial decision-making; (2) laypeople’s standard of proof for criminal trials may be higher than that of judges so that jurors may commit type-1 error less than would the judges in the long run. Based on the two implications, how to approach to the judge-jury difference, albeit small, in criminal fact-finding was discussed.