2012년을 기준으로 미국의 인구 10만 명당 구금자수 707명으로 세계 최고의 수준이다. 현재 미국의 구금자 수나 구금율은 지난 몇 십 년 동안에 이루어진 변화의 결과이다. 보수주의 시대에 해당하는 1980년대에서 1990년대에 이르기까지 미국은 이른바 강경대응방식(tough-on-crime approach)을 취하였고, 그 결과 구금자수와 구금율이 급격히 증가한 것이다. 강경대응방식은 구금자수와 구금율의 급격한 증가 이외에도 따른 행형예산의 대폭적 증가, 과밀수용 등 처우의 악화, 권한남용 및 인권침해 증가, 행형비리 등 온갖 문제점을 드러내었다. 강경정책은 2000년대에 들어와서도 한동안 지속되다가, 2000년대 후반 세계금융 위기를 맞으면서 예산문제를 감당할 수 없게 된 미국 정부는 기존 대응방식의 문제점을 분석하고 그 대안으로 효율적 대응방식(smart-on-crime approach)을 채택하기에 이르렀다. 이와 같은 새로운 대응방식은 비단 예산 절감의 차원에 그치지 않고, 그동안 강경정책에 가려 묵인하거나 소홀히 취급하였던 인종간 불균형, 청소년·여성 등 취약자에 대한 배려, 사형수의 처우, 민간행형시설의 비효율과 인권침해 등 행형전반에 걸친 문제점들을 하나씩 점검하기 시작하였다. 이로써 현재 미국은 예산절감, 인권신장 그리고 범죄통제라는 세 마리 토끼를 한꺼번에 잡을 수 있는 방안을 마련하기 위해 안간힘을 쓰고 있다. 최근 우리나라에서는 성폭력범죄를 비롯하여 각종 흉악범죄의 실상이 언론을 통해 적나라하게 보도되면서 흉악범죄에 대한 경경대처 여론이 비등하였고, 이에 정치권과 사법부는 형벌가중, 보안처분 확대, 양형기준 인상 등 강경대응방식으로 나아가고 있다. 그러나 이러한 방식은 미국의 경험이 증명하듯 예산의 압박, 인권침해 사례의 증가, 행형비리의 증대와 같은 각종 폐해를 양산할 우려가 다분하다. 필자는 그 동안 미국의 경험은 우리나라가 참조하기에 충분한 시사점을 제공한다고 보고, 구금자수와 구금율의 변화, 인종간 불균형, 청소년, 여성, 노인, LGBT(Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender ; LGBT), 사형수 등 구금을 중심으로 하여 최근 미국 행형의 변화에 대해 살펴보았다.

현재 우리나라가 운영하고 있는 교도소와 그 행형은 일본과 서양국가들의 영향으로 시작되었다. 특히 영국과 미국 등 서양국가로부터 받아들여 구축한 일본 모델이 현대 우리나라 행형의 주된 모습을 구성하고 있다. 메이지 유신 당시 일본은 미국보다는 영국제도를 따랐다는 증거도 보인다. 정부의 명령으로 유럽과 미국을 다녀 온 관료들은 일본의 교도소 행형을 크게 발전시켰고, 이는 최근까지 우리나라에 영향을 주었다. 한국에서는 과거에 기결 수용자에 대한 교도소 제도를 갖지 못했기 때문에 서양국가에서 발전시켜 온 교도소와 행형제도를 살펴보는 것이 우리나라 교도소의 유래를 찾는 것이라 할 수 있다. 이 논문은 교도소와 행형이 어떠한 의미를 가지고 있고, 영국․미국 등 서양국가와 일본의 발전과정을 살펴봄으로써 이들이 어떻게 우리나라에 영향을 미쳤는지를 논의한다.

우리나라 헌법은 “누구든지 법률에 의하지 아니하고는 체포·구속·압수·수색 또는 심문을 받지 아니하며, 법률과 적법한 절차에 의하지 아니하고는 처벌·보 안처분 또는 강제노역을 받지 아니한다.”고 하여(제12조제1항) 형사절차에 관하여 적법절차의 원칙을 천명하고 있다. 이 원칙은 입법작용, 행정작용 그리고 사법적용 전반에 걸쳐 적용되는 독자적인 헌법원리로서 특히 인권침해소지가 큰 형사절차에서 엄격하게 적용될 것이 요구되고 있다. 그동안 수사절차와 재판절차에서는 적법절차원칙이 비교적 엄격하게 적용되어 왔으나 형집행절차에서 법원은 부과되는 형벌이나 보안처분의 종류와 양만을 결정할 뿐 구체적인 집행은 행정부에 일임하고 있고, 그 집행의 과정에서 발생하는 각종 인권침해에 대한 사후적 구제에 있어서도 법원의 역할은 미미하였다. 이에 반하여 독일과 프랑스는 형집행의 과정상 중요한 결정을 법원이 직접할 뿐만 아니라 형집행과정에서의 인권침해를 구제하기 위한 전문기관으로서 형집행법원 내지 형집행법관제도를 운용해 왔다. 최근 우리나라는 성폭력범죄대책의 일환으로 성범죄자 신상정 보공개, 치료감호, 위치추적 전자장치(전자발찌), 성충동 약물치료(화학적 거세) 등 자유제한적 보안처분제도를 속속 도입하였고 최근 법무부는 (구)사회보호법 상의 보호감호를 보호수용이라는 명칭으로 재도입하는 것을 내용으로 하는 형법개정작업을 진행 중이다. 본 논문은 이와 같은 상황에서 독일과 프랑스의 입법례를 소개·검토하고, 이를 토대로 적법절차의 관점에서 형집행에 대한 사법적 통제를 강화하기 위한 방안의 일환으로 가석방 등 형집행과정상 중요한 결정을 법원의 권한으로 옮기고 나아가 형집행법원·형집행법관과 같은 사법심사제도를 도입할 것을 주장한다.

본 고에서는 개정행형법(형의 집행 및 수용자의 처우에 관한 법률)의 개정의의에 대하여 음미하였다. 개정행형법의 의의로는 수용자의 법적지위를 분명히 함과 동시에 수형자처우의 목표로써 교정교화 및 사회복귀를 도모한다는 것을 보다 명확히 하였다는 점에 있다. 하지만 개정법률과 관련하여 가장 아쉬운 점은 수형자의 자각적 개선의지와 관련된 구체적인 규정이 명문화되지 않았다는 점이다. 행형처우에 있어서 수형자에게 교정교화 및 사회복귀를 위한 각종의 지도와 훈련 등이 실시된다고 하여도 그것이 오로지 국가에 의한 일방적ㆍ타율적 인 규제로써 이루어져 수형자가 이것을 단순히 수동적으로 따르는 것에 그친다면 수형자의 교정교화 및 사회복귀라는 교정의 목적은 처음부터 달성할 수 없는 목표가 된다. 행형처우란 본래 수형자 스스로가 사회복귀의 필요성을 자각하여 이에 관한 강한 의욕을 갖고 자발적ㆍ주체적인 노력을 하는 것에 의해 그 효과를 기대할 수 있다. 마찬가지로 자유형의 집행에 의한 사회방위는 수형자의 개선과 사회복귀에 의해 성립하는 것으로 그 기능을 다하는 것에 행형의 가장 중요한 의의가 있다는 것은 부정할 수 없다. 그러므로 그 실시에 있어서는 무엇보다 수형자 개개인에게 이러한 의욕을 환기시키고 자발적인 노력을 촉진시키는 것이 요청되며, 이것은 수형자에게 자유형의 집행에 있어서 원활한 사회복귀를 하여야 한다는 일정 정도의 의무를 갖게 하는 것이라고 할 수 있다.

1960년대 이후 현재까지의 독일의 형벌, 보안처분 그리고 행형에 있어서 특 징적인 것은 책임형벌과 책임형법이 개입하기를 자제하는 영역에 대하여 책임 원칙이 적용되지 않는 보안처분이나 행형을 통하여 개입하려는 경향이 강하게 나타나고 있다는 점이다. 그러한 영역이란 전통적인 책임형벌의 목적과는 다른 위험의 차단과 법질서의 방어이다. 1960-70년대의 형법개정작업을 살펴보면, 한 편으로는 전통적인 책임형벌에 대하여 법치국가원리를 관철하여 국가형벌권을 제한하면서도, 다른 한편으로 보안처분과 행형을 통하여 개방된 형태의 자유의 박탈을 지향한다. 그러나 이러한 개정작업들은 궁극적으로 바로 재범의 위험성 때문에 위험한 범죄인을 사회로부터 격리하려는 뚜렷한 경향을 나타낸다. 이러한 경향은 1980년-현재까지의 발전과정에 그대로 반영되어 있다. 특히 보안감호 처분은 실질적으로는, 재범의 위험있는 범죄인이 가능한 한 행형의 단계에서 사회로 환원되는 것을 저지하는 기능을 수행함으로써 법질서의 방어의 목적에 기여한다. 이것이 법치국가원리와 얼마나 상응하는가는 의문이다. 바로 이러한 법 치국가적 우려 때문에 우리나라에서는 지나치게 장기인 보호감호와 누범의 가중조항이 위헌결정을 받았던 것이다. 그리고 이 기간의 또 다른 특징은 독일에서 단기의 자유형에 상응하는 단기의 수형과 미결구금이 증가하였다는 점이다. 그렇다고 해서 독일의 형사제재체계가 형벌, 보안처분 그리고 행형체계에 의해서만 형성되어 있는 것은 아니다. 특히 행위자-피해자-조정제도와 범죄피해의 원상회복 그리고 형사소송절차에서의 유죄의 협상 등은 형사제재체계에서 독자적인 중요성을 확보하고 있다. 행형의 단계에는 행형의 목적설정에서부터 사회 방어사상이 중요한 행형의 목적으로 대두되고 있다. 특히 사회치료시설에의 수용은 점차 확대되어 가는 경향을 나타낸다. 이러한 독일의 형벌, 보안처분 그리고 행형체계의 현대적 발전과정을 살펴 볼 때, 과연 우리나라의 형사제재체계에 일종의 모델로서 제시될 수 있는가는 의문이다. 특히 법질서와 사회의 방어를 위해서는 얼마든지 사회로부터 격리시킬 수 있도록 한 것은 법치국가원리와 인권에 대한 중대한 침해이다. 우리나라의 일련의 헌법재판소의 위헌결정의 취지가 바로 여기에 있다는 것을 고려할 때 더더욱 그렇다.

Living in a world governed almost entirely by the exercise of the discretion naturally generates a wide range of grievances. Accordingly it is essential that prisoners have a number of avenue of redress open to them whereby the illegal exercise of power maybe challenged, and by which compensation can be recovered for the infringement of such rights as survive in all prisoners notwithstanding there infringement. Under the Prison Act, prisoners have the right to pursue a request or complaint connected to or arising from there imprisonment with the governor of the prison. And it has long been accepted that prisoners also have the right to complaint to or petition the Minister with overall responsibility for the Prison Service and the care of prisoners. But the previous scheme was generally regarded as unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. It was inefficient, slow and lacking in coherence. The Ministry of Justice embarked upon a process of revising the Criminal Administration Act in 2004, and submitted the Revision Bill to the national Assembly on April 26. 2006. In this Bill a new system to enhance the efficiency and transparency of the correction adminstration, such as mandatory institutionalization of the corrections committee for consultation and legalization of the interview system with the governor of the prison. The new system is better than before, but still have major defects to dispel the culture of defensiveness surrounding the issue of complaints or requests. After the Seoul-Jail case in 2006 the Ministry of Justice introduced new systems, such as Sexual Assault Watch, Prison Ombudsman, and Advisory Council on Correction Affairs, to ensure consistency in monitoring human rights policies while accommodating public opinion about rights improvements and expanding popular participation in justice affairs administration in 2006. This article, therefore, reviews the new systems and suggests that these should be accepted in the Bill which is submitted to the national Assembly.

The Korean Penal Execution Act has been revised several times for the purpose of strengthening the ability of adaptation to a society for prisoners. This article has reviewed major issues of the draft for revision and analyzed the propriety of the issues. The paper addresses the issues in sequence of the draft for revision and they are as follows: First of all, it explores an extension of human rights for prisoners, such as the issues of security level of correctional facilities, construction criteria of correctional facilities, duties of the head of prison, freedom of religion in prison, freedom of writing, kinds of protective equipments, kinds of punishments, consideration of minority and the social weak, declaration of presumption of innocence of the convicted, and the principle of sole internment for a person who is sentenced to death etc. In particular, the government has to provide adequate medical facilities for a prisoner's needs Moreover, prison officials may be obligated to provide continuing medical treatment to newly released prisoners until the prisoners are able to obtain medical care on their own. In sum, prison officials should not interfere with a prisoner's exercise of fundamental rights of constitution unless the interference is reasonably related to a legitimate penal interest, nor may prison officials retaliate against a prisoner for exercising such rights. Second, it discusses the issue of extension of external communications and reinforcement of the ability of adaptation to a society. For example, the right of access, the right of use of mails, and telephone communication etc. Third, it deals also with reinforcement of the capacity for administration of internment, such as a legal basis of electronic surveillance system. Lastly, it examines the ways enhancing the efficiency and transparency of correction administration, such as mandatory institutionalization of the corrections committee for consultation, introduction of authority for the delivery of personal belongings, and legalization of interview system with the head of prison and so on.

“국군은 국가의 안전보장과 국토방위의 신성한 의무를 수행함을 사명으로 한다.”고 우리헌법 제5조 2항은 명시하고 있다. 그러므로 군에서 발생하는 범죄행위는 곧 인적요소인 전투력을 손실시키게 된다는 것을 의미하게 되므로 군내 범죄예방에 노력하고, 발생된 범죄행위에 대해서는 철저한 수사활동을 통해 해결하여 범죄발생을 억제함과 동시에 낙오된 수용자에 대하여도 보다 적극적이고 합리적인 교정교화 업무를 수행함으로써 무위의 전투력 손실을 방지하는데 중점을 두어야 하겠다. 따라서 현재 진행 중에 있는 군행형법 전부개정안에 관한 검토와 연구는 이러한 측면에서 매우 중요한 의미를 내포하고 있다 할 수 있겠다. 특히 군행형법 개정안은 2005년도부터 사법제도 개혁추진위원회에서 군사법제도 개혁일환으로 추진하여 온 군형법 개정안 등 총7개 법안 중1) 하나로서 그동안 국방부에서는 군사법제도 개혁 건의문을 존중하면서 군의 특수성 보장을 위한 군내외의 다양한 의견수렴 절차를 거쳐 군행형법 개정안을 사법제도 개혁위원회에 제출하였으며 이를 토대로 최종 입법안을 의결(현재 국회계류 중) 하였다고 주장하고 있다. 그러나 군행형법 개정방안 중 일부사항은 다른 군사법 개선방안과 같이 관련부서간의 이해관계로 인해 충분한 논의가 아직도 미흡한 감이 없지 않은 실정으로 군의 특수성과 장병 인권보장이 구현되는 측면에서 개정이 이루어지도록 좀 더 신중하게 접근해 나가는게 바람직하다고 생각한다.

The revised Bill of Prison Act was introduced into National Assembly by government on 26. april 2006. This bill surpasses Korean current Prison Act both in the protection of prisoners' rights and the improvement of correctional treatment. nevertheless with many regrets there are some problems to solve in our bill between guaranteeing prisoners' Fundamental Rights and maintaining order and safety in the penal institution therefore this studies were concentrated on making up for the week points in this bill. focusing on the imprisonment, contact with the outside world of the prisoners (the right to ask an interview with , and to correspond with) and disciplinary punishment in prison in view of the fundamental rights of prisoners. Discussing the inmate rights are frequently seen by the public as un necessary expenses and luxuries but all persons are dignified although they are criminals. therefore Prisoners' fundamental rights should be respected in order to confirmation their human dignify. The following is the suggestions of these studies. 1. Contact with the outside world of the prisoners is guaranteed to the utmost for the purpose of both re-socialization and prisoners' human rights. 2. Prison overcrowding issues should be solved as soon as possible for prisoners' human dignify. 3. Surveillance by cctv to maintain order and safety there must be a great danger to violence the prisoners' privacy rights. so the surveillance of prisoners' cells by cctv must not be permitted. 4. Prohibition of writings, prohibition of mail and visit, prohibition of autdoor exercises does not appropriate for the disciplinary punishments. 5. Solitary confinement in the most critical disciplinary punishments so it should be limited to maximum 30days.

The direction of revising the Law of Criminal Punishment Execution should consider the very idea of the Constitution. In concrete, the rights of the convicted criminals should be protected in the name of their basic rights which are guaranteed in the Constitution. Many revisions have been done in the law of criminal punishment execution in a way that the law protected inmates' basic rights but still many things left untouched. Basically it is true that correctional laws tend to permit inclusive discretionary power of authorities in order to control and supervise troublesome criminals. In turn, the inclusive discretionary power gives room for authorities to overuse the power and results in the violation of constitutional rights of inmates. To resolve the conflicts between the idea that inmates have their consitutional rights and it should be protected in the one hand, and the reality that basic rights of inmates could be confined as necessary on the other hand, we should discuss more concretely about the scopes and ranges of inmates' rights and the valid criteria for limiting their rights. and the execution law should reflect this efforts.

The Ministry of Justice has revised the existing "law concerning the execution of criminal punishment" in the way that enhanced human rights for inmates and their ability for reintegration. To fulfil this goal, the authority changed the title of the law to "the Law concerning correctional facilities and the treatment for inmates and waited for legislative process. In the same context, the corrections bureau in the Ministry recently announced "The Strategic Plan for the Changes in Correctional Administration" to show its committment for innovation. This article reviewed the contents of the new law and the strategic plan, and then pointed out some limitations of these efforts. When it comes to the new law-The law concerning correctional facilities and the treatment for inmates, the contents of the law did not reach the expectation, first because there are too many exceptions that breach the basic human rights of inmates and second, the law did not make any efforts or policies to enhance the adapatability of inmates into a wider society compulsory. Instead, it allow authorities use discretionary power. As far as the Strategic Plan is concerned, it seems too idealistic. In other words, many proposed plan is hard to achieve in reality. Therefore I suggested some alternative ideas such as developing correctional programs for short-time inmates, improving living conditions in facilities, linking classification system and progressive treatment system, and increasing parolees by utilizing the probation system.

This thesis deals with some problems on the revision of current The Penal Execution Act. By the draft for revision, made public by the ministry of justice, the purpose of revision-draft comprises some principles of prohibition of illegitimate discrimination of prisoners, strengthening the right of presumption of innocence of the convicted, rationalization and individualization of the correctional programs, widening the chances of consulting with relating professionals about the prison administration especially corrections, classification and assignment of facilities in our national penitentiaries' system, recommendation of some high tech security equipment. To the public, corrections are generally understood that the purpose of corrections is to carry out the sentence of the court, with various correctional components handling specific types of sentences. Some components are devoted to providing pretrial services for those entering the criminal justice system. Other components, such as jails, handle individuals of both pre-and post conviction status. The majority of correctional components deal with persons who have appeared before the court and have been found guilty of one or more crimes. Corrections refers to the programs, services, agencies, institutions responsible for supervising persons charged with or convicted of crimes. A paradigm is a model or a way of viewing an aspect of life such as education, politics, medicin, the criminal system. A paradigm shift can make a new way of thinking about a given subject, corrections. Recently paradigm shift recommended for corrections include doing justice, promoting secure communities, restoring crime victims and noncriminal options. Finally, we come to the conclusion that revision of the Penal Execution Act seeks to use a balanced approach involving offenders, victims, local communities and government in alleviating crime and violence and peaceful communities.

The fundamental purpose of modern correctional treatment can be to surely make convicts return to society through individualization of treatment. However, it seems individualization of treatment may not be so helpful for convicts in returning to society unless it is the most appropriate and rational individual treatment that considers their property and character on the basis of exact understanding on each convict. Especially, as individual personality and property is emphasized and persons with different view of life, view of world and sense of value are living together nowadays, it seems almost impossible to return convicts to society merely through individualization of treatment, ignoring the fact that ‘proper sphere of character’ exists. Thus, seeking the method of correctional treatment appropriate to the age of individualization like the present time seems to be the most important task of modern correctional administration. The concept of individualization of treatment can be said to be established on the basis of ‘rational sense of human being’ that has ruled so far since the 17th century. Rational sense of human being may be image of human being that overlooks the fact that ‘proper sphere of character’ unique to each person obviously exists by grasping human being merely with abstract concept that human being is 'free and rational individual.' However, returning convicts to society through individualization of treatment based on rational sense of human being will be inevitably subject to regular limit. Therefore, it seems that so-called ‘personification of treatment’ is necessary which is based on the premise that each person has ‘proper sphere of character’ in the age of individualization like the present time. Needless to say, it may not be so easy to clearly define what ‘personification of treatment’ is and what it should be. Thus, it may be necessary to first find method to secure conversation and trust between characters or between individual character and community (society or correction authorities) before defining the concept of ‘personification of treatment.’ It is true that the correctional treatment has treated convicts not as ‘principal of correction’ or ‘partner of conversation’ but as ‘object of correction’ or ‘object of treatment’ thus far. I think that this is why so-called ‘personification of treatment’ is not realized which considers the property and character of convicts, based on the exact understanding on each of them. Therefore, in order to efficiently achieve the purpose of returning convicts to society in the present time, it is required to recognize convicts as ‘principal of correction’ or ‘partner of conversation’ and to enforce ‘personification of treatment’ on the basis of the fact that they also have ‘proper sphere of character.’

In Article 10 of our Constitutional Law in our country prescribed that “All of our people have a dignity as a humanbeing and value also have a right to puruse happiness” It has clearly defined that the human dignity is the highest value of the rule. The term “human rights” means any of human dignity, worth, liberties and rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution and Acts of the Republic of Korea or recognized by international human rights treaties entered into and ratified by the Republic of Korea and international customary law. The main objectives of the human rights are to realize the dignity and worth of the human person in order to contribute to the safeguard of the basic order of democracy. It is very important to protect and promote the inalienable and fundamental human rights of all individuals. This paper is a study on guaranteeing the Human Rights of convicted prisoners. In this thesis, aimed at groping improvement device of the convict system to establish the human rights. It is impossible only effort of The prison officer for the national human rights safeguard and improvement of the basic human, a continuous interest should be required as well as a new posture of the national consciousness for the human rights.

Imprisonment plays and stands the important roles to substitute the pre-modern corporal punishment to the modern punishment systems. The main purpose of imprisonment execution is rehabilitation for convicts by preservation of public peace and reformation education. However, it is not convinced that the current imprisonment system as "ideal punishment" with execution purpose of convicts' rehabilitation has performed satisfactorily. Therefore, reconsideration for restriction of freedom itself should be reflected and an alternative punishment institution for imprisonment shall be searched and studied. From this point of view, it seems criminal policy should head forward to the direction that can control the restriction of freedom as much as possible. This dissertation, hence, reviews the "Materialization and Features of Modern Imprisonment Systems" and examines "Limitations and Controversial Issues of Imprisonment as Criminal Policy". And then, to present the development schemes of Korean execution system, "Successive Adaptation Plans for Limitation of Freedom", "Expansion of Parole System and Application of Probation System" and "Establishment of Correction Agency" are studied. "Successive Adaptation Plans for Limitation of Freedom" exhibits the supervision treatment and open treatment programs; in "Expansion of Parole System and Application of Probation System" section, necessity of close connection between parole and probation systems is emphasized; and "Establishment of Correction Agency" reconsiders the efficiency of reformation administration and asserts the establishment for supervision office to inspire public service personnels morale. In conclusion, to draw out the goals of current criminal policy as it is, imprisonment execution system is inevitable. Nevertheless, pains from restriction of freedom must be mineralized, that is, the system should be the one minimizes the reactions or side effects from isolation from society and personal imprisonment. To do this, from humanitarian, rational and economic points of view, open-reformatory, practical programs of releasing before the expiration of terms and alleviation of unessential regulations are demanded. Steady contacts with society and extension of association scope will relax convicts affliction caused by separation from society and be easy to rehabilitate, accordingly, Korean criminal policy should head forward to the system that emphasizes treatment within society.

Corrections is a very important stage in that it prevents the accused from committing further crimes. I think that corrections should consider the prisoners not as objects of reforming but as subjects of self-awakening. So it must enforce the prisoners not to offend crimes but make them examinate themselves. Restrictions of freedom and of prisoners' rights should be minimized. And in the living arrangement, it is desirable to live together in daytime and alone at night. More Religious services are recommended. We should consider effective measures for prisoners to have positive self-esteem.

The effective confinement of correctional populations, and the successful rehabilitation and reintegration of the inmates as key elements of correctional objectives are legitimized by the law. However, it is not easy to accomplish these goals at the same time, because these two goals are inherently in conflict: emphasizing on the one may result in weakening of the other. Therefore, both theoretical and practical considerations have been given to reconciliate this contradictory aspect of the two goals. The study examines each issue of "rehabilitation and reintegration" and "public safety" with their relevance to the correctional goals, and then discusses their relationship, focusing on the conflict side of the two goals. Next, attempts are made to find out ways to solve the tension between the two. This paper gives some suggestions as follows; ① The priority should be given to the goal of rehabilitation and reintegration rather than that of public safety and community protection, ② although the safety issue seems secondary in its role in the general correctional objectives, this does not mean that we can ignore this aspect entirely. It should also be considered as an important part of the correctional goals, ③ efficient and effective strategies must be made to preserve secure environment within the facilities, ④ incessant efforts are needed to develop various strategies for the community-based corrections.