지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
According to the Korean Criminal Code §10 ①, the mentally ill offender is not responsible for his conduct. The reason is that he has no ability or diminished ability to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to control his conduct as a result of mental illness. But the Code §10 ① is only comprehensive guideline of judging th ability for the criminal responsibility.
There are many examples of the standard of discriminating the criminal responsibility adopted in the U. K. and the U. S. that include the M’Naghten Rules, Irresistible Impulse Test, Durham Rule and Model Penal Code and so on. Because there are not concrete standard, as the interpretation we determine the criteria of the criminal responsibility with mixed methode. So the court retains the sole right to make that decision, based on the biological findings of psychiatrists.
This study keeps the purpose to present a standard of determining criteria of the criminal responsibility through the cooperation between the court and the psychiatry.
There some criminal polices are put for the conclusion.
First, there should be established a way, such as ‘Konvention’ in Germany, for psychiatric test experts and legal experts.
Second, there should be strictly made a distinction between the determining criteria of the mental illness and the judgement of the recidivistic dangerousness of the cure-custody.
Third, there should be observed the presumption of innocence principle on the mentally disordered offenders’ disability for crimes in the criminal procedure.
Forth, there should be institutionally equipped with ‘Mental Health Court’，‘Court Diversion Scheme’ to harmonize the conclusion that psychiatric test experts and legal experts make.
Fifth, there should be needed to make the functional enrichment of the rehabilitation to the society of the medical treatment and custody disposition for mentally disordered offenders. For example, administrating a medical care unit like ‘Outreach Team’ to support mental handicapped offenders’ rehabilitation to the society.
There are many examples of the standard of discriminating the criminal responsibility adopted in the U. K. and the U. S. that include the M’Naghten Rules, Irresistible Impulse Test, Durham Rule and Model Penal Code and so on. Because there are not concrete standard, as the interpretation we determine the criteria of the criminal responsibility with mixed methode. So the court retains the sole right to make that decision, based on the biological findings of psychiatrists.
This study keeps the purpose to present a standard of determining criteria of the criminal responsibility through the cooperation between the court and the psychiatry.
There some criminal polices are put for the conclusion.
First, there should be established a way, such as ‘Konvention’ in Germany, for psychiatric test experts and legal experts.
Second, there should be strictly made a distinction between the determining criteria of the mental illness and the judgement of the recidivistic dangerousness of the cure-custody.
Third, there should be observed the presumption of innocence principle on the mentally disordered offenders’ disability for crimes in the criminal procedure.
Forth, there should be institutionally equipped with ‘Mental Health Court’，‘Court Diversion Scheme’ to harmonize the conclusion that psychiatric test experts and legal experts make.
Fifth, there should be needed to make the functional enrichment of the rehabilitation to the society of the medical treatment and custody disposition for mentally disordered offenders. For example, administrating a medical care unit like ‘Outreach Team’ to support mental handicapped offenders’ rehabilitation to the society.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 책임능력의 판단기준
Ⅲ. 판례상의 책임능력판단기준 검토
Ⅳ. 맺음말
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (58)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
정신장애범죄자에 대한 치료처분제도의 개선방안: 미국의 치료법원의 도입을 중심으로
형사법연구
2010 .01
-
형사사법절차상 형사합의 관행의 실태분석과 제도화 방안
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2014 .12
-
형사특별법의 입법구조와 이론적 기초
비교형사법연구
2012 .01
-
우리나라 형사화해제도에 대한 검토
동아법학
2009 .08
-
범죄자 처우모델의 결합론적 모색
교정연구
2003 .01
-
정신장애범죄자의 형사책임능력판단 기준에 관한 연구
형사정책연구
2007 .03
-
정신장애 범죄인의 처우에 관한 연구
법학연구
2007 .02
-
형사정책연구 30년의 성과와 과제(II) : 형사법 연구
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2019 .03
-
법정에 선 정신장애 : 형사책임능력에 대한 의료지식과 법적 결정
형사정책연구
2018 .09
-
[새로운 범죄대응전략으로서 화해조정체계구축(Ⅰ)] 형사사법체계내 형사조정제도 도입에 따른 법이론적 문제점 및 개선방안
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2008 .12
-
2011년도 형법ㆍ형사소송법 및 형사특별법 제ㆍ개정안 분석과 입법정책 개선방안
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2011 .12
-
형사특별법 정비방안(4) 특정경제범죄가중처벌법등에관한법률
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2008 .12
-
새로운 범죄대응전략으로서 화해조정체계구축방안(Ⅱ) - 형사화해조정체계의 구축을 위한 법적ㆍ제도적 정비방안 총괄보고서
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2009 .12
-
심신장애 판정의 문제점과 개선방안 : 각국의 제도 및 현황을 비교하여
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2004 .12
-
‘Deep Responsibility’ and Alternative Possibilities in Criminal Law
동아법학
2010 .02
-
정신장애범죄인에 대한 치료감호제도의 현황과 개선방안
법이론실무연구
2016 .10
-
정신장애 범죄자의 특성에 따른 경찰의 대책방안에 관한 연구
한국공안행정학회보
2019 .01
-
사회변동과 형법의 과제
비교형사법연구
2010 .01
-
中國 刑法上 犯罪過程에서의 犯罪形態
법학연구
2005 .06
-
현행 범죄피해자보호법상 형사조정제도의 검토
피해자학연구
2011 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-000498691