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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2013.2
- 수록면
- 187 - 219 (33page)
- DOI
- 10.35505/slj.2013.02.2.1.187
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
South Korea practically has become an abolitionist since it has not excuted the Death Penalty for over 15 years. However, the Constitutional Court of Korea ruled in 2010 that the Death Penalty system does not violate Article 10 and 37 section 2 of constitution.
Therefore, this thesis reviewed most current case 2010. 2. 25 2008 Hun-Ka 23 judgement with critical perspective for the death penalty and its domestic and international trend and results are followed as below.
As human dignity must be based on the right to life as it is ensured by article 10 of the constitution, the death penalty is said to be contradicting directly with human dignity and its right to life because the right to life can be recognized as the fundamental ensured by the constitution as foundation to human existence.
Within constitutional order where right to life is protected, concept of "life valueless to protect" and "life valueless to exist" must not be placed as a driving force in policy making. The death penalty recognizes criminal as a means to prevent recurrence of crime and is an inhuman system not providing moral freedom to regret or improver, by so it is violating the article 10 of constitution I think.
In addition, the death penalty is a punishment as only retribution and isolating criminals from society is effective as life sentence, and in case of sentencing life to a nefarious criminal, it is hard to see right justice balance between infringement in legal right of criminal by the punishment and degree of infringement in legal right by crime with responsibility of criminal.
Therefore, I believe life sentence can achieve means of punishment and think creating biggest damage as deprivation of human life under the name of law and justice is violating principle of excessive restriction.
In Korea, since abolishment of death penalty, growth of violent crime has not been proved objectively and the trial is as it is carried out by human, it is clear that we can not exclude possibility of misjudgement. As the Constitutional Court of Korea has expressed, if misjudgement is considered to be a fatal limitation of judicial trial, because of rather this limitation, the punishment depriving most fundamental right to life of humanity that is impossible to recover must be diminished.
Therefore, this thesis reviewed most current case 2010. 2. 25 2008 Hun-Ka 23 judgement with critical perspective for the death penalty and its domestic and international trend and results are followed as below.
As human dignity must be based on the right to life as it is ensured by article 10 of the constitution, the death penalty is said to be contradicting directly with human dignity and its right to life because the right to life can be recognized as the fundamental ensured by the constitution as foundation to human existence.
Within constitutional order where right to life is protected, concept of "life valueless to protect" and "life valueless to exist" must not be placed as a driving force in policy making. The death penalty recognizes criminal as a means to prevent recurrence of crime and is an inhuman system not providing moral freedom to regret or improver, by so it is violating the article 10 of constitution I think.
In addition, the death penalty is a punishment as only retribution and isolating criminals from society is effective as life sentence, and in case of sentencing life to a nefarious criminal, it is hard to see right justice balance between infringement in legal right of criminal by the punishment and degree of infringement in legal right by crime with responsibility of criminal.
Therefore, I believe life sentence can achieve means of punishment and think creating biggest damage as deprivation of human life under the name of law and justice is violating principle of excessive restriction.
In Korea, since abolishment of death penalty, growth of violent crime has not been proved objectively and the trial is as it is carried out by human, it is clear that we can not exclude possibility of misjudgement. As the Constitutional Court of Korea has expressed, if misjudgement is considered to be a fatal limitation of judicial trial, because of rather this limitation, the punishment depriving most fundamental right to life of humanity that is impossible to recover must be diminished.
목차
I. 서론
II. 사형제의 현황과 추세
III. 사형제의 위헌성 논의
IV. 결론
參考文獻
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문과 연관된 판례 (6)
-
헌법재판소 1997. 8. 21. 선고 94헌바19,95헌바34,97헌가11 全員裁判部
가. (1) 이 사건 법률조항이 근로자에게 그 퇴직금 전액에 대하여 질권자나 저당권자에 우선하는 변제수령권을 인정함으로써 결과적으로 질권자나 저당권자가 그 권리의 목적물로부터 거의 또는 전혀 변제를 받지 못하게 되는 경우에는, 그 질권이나 저당권의 본질적 내용을 이루는 우선변제수령권이 형해화하게 되므로 이 사건 법률조항 중 "퇴직금"부분
자세히 보기 -
헌법재판소 1996. 11. 28. 선고 95헌바1 전원재판부〔합헌 · 각하〕
1. (가) 生命權 역시 憲法 제37조 제2항에 의한 일반적 법률유보의 대상이 될 수밖에 없는 것이나, 生命權에 대한 제한은 곧 生命權의 완전한 박탈을 의미한다 할 것이므로, 死刑이 比例의 원칙에 따라서 최소한 동등한 가치가 있는 다른 생명 또는 그에 못지 아니한 公共의 利益을 보호하기 위한 불가피성이 충족되는 예외적인 경우에만 적용되는 한
자세히 보기 -
헌법재판소 2010. 2. 25. 선고 2008헌가23 전원재판부
가. 가석방의 요건에 관한 규정은 사법부에 의하여 형이 선고·확정된 이후의 집행에 관한 문제일 뿐 이 사건 당해 재판 단계에서 문제될 이유는 없고, 달리 위 규정이 당해 사건에 적용될 법률조항임을 인정할 자료를 찾아 볼 수 없으므로, 이 사건 위헌제청 중 형법 제72조 제1항 중 `무기징역’ 부분은 재판의 전제성이 없
자세히 보기 -
헌법재판소 1989. 12. 22. 선고 88헌가13 전원재판부〔합헌 · 위헌〕
1. 사유재산제도(私有財産制度)의 보장(保障)은 타인(他人)과 더불어 살아가야 하는 공동체생활(共同體生活)과의 조화(調和)와 균형(均衡)을 흐트려뜨리지 않는 범위(範圍) 내에서의 보장(保障)이다.
자세히 보기 -
헌법재판소 1990. 9. 3. 선고 89헌가95 全員裁判部
국세기본법(國稅基本法) 제35조 제1항 제3호 중(中) “으로부터 1년(年)"이라는 부분(部分)은 헌법(憲法) 제23조 제1항이 보장(保障)하고 있는 재산권(財産權)의 본질적(本質的)인 내용(內容)을 침해(侵害)하는 것으로서 헌법(憲法) 전문(前文), 제1조, 제10조, 제11조 제1항, 제23조 제1항, 제37조 제2항 단서(但書),
자세히 보기 -
헌법재판소 1997. 6. 26. 선고 92헌바5 全員裁判部
가. 우리 재판소는 1989.12.22. 선고, 88헌가13 결정에서, 국토이용관리법 제21조의3 제1항의 토지거래허가제는 사유재산제도나 사적자치(사적자치)원칙의 부정이 아니라 헌법의 명문(제122조)에 의거한 재산권 제한의 한 형태이고 토지의 투기적 거래를 억제하기 위하여 이 법이 정한 방법과 내용에 따라 그 처분을 일정한 범위내에서
자세히 보기
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-360-000214451