세간을 긴장시키는 흉악범죄와 호기심을 자극하는 신종사건의 발생, 이어 등장하는 언론매체의 ‘여론몰이’, 소위 전문인들의 무책임한 ‘범죄학 만들기’, 그리고 즉흥적인 ‘대책 짜깁기’ 등으로 이어지는 일련의 뿌리가 없는 범죄공학에는 철학적 사유나 예술적 가치가 개입될 여지가 존재하지 않는다. 또한 인간 모두가 체험하는 보편적인 삶의 형태 - 예컨대, 삶과 죽음, 자유와 속박 - 보다는 특수상황으로서 강제적 형별집행 - 예컨대, 구금, 징벌, 사형 - 이 중심이 되는 교정패러다임에서는 폐쇄성, 피동성, 안일성의 틀을 탈피하기 어렵다. 동시에 검증되지 않은 미시적 통계놀이가 학문적 중심으로 착각되고 시설내 사고방지가 효율적 관리의 목표가 되는 문화풍토에서는 형이상학적 사고놀이로 치부될 수 있는 소위 ‘철학적 범죄학’이나 ‘인문학적 교정학’은 영원한 노스텔지어적 이상향으로 남을 수밖에 없다. 따라서 기존 교정학의 전제와 실천적 규범이 더 이상 현실적으로 정당화되지 않는다는 비판을 통해 새로운 패러다임으로의 변증법적 논리형성과정을 거쳐야 한다. 구체적인 목표는 교정학의 비규범학화이며, 그 방법론으로 인문학적 접근이 제시될 수 있다. 인문학적 접근의 핵심적 내용은 철학적 사유, 영성적 추구, 예술적 가치의 지향을 통해 추론될 수 있을 것이다. 본질적인 인간의 생존과 삶의 향유 속에서 보편적이고 숙명적으로 체험하는 시간과 공간을 범죄학과 교정학의 출발점으로 삼아야 한다.

To the general public, the term 'corrections' is unerstood as synonymous with punishment. In our country, it was not until 1961 that the name 'prison' was changed to the 'corrections center' and 'prison officer' to the 'correctional officer'. Corrections is the portion of the criminal justice system which should be charged with carrying out the sentences of the courts, especially specifying the contents of punishments and probation services, community services, day reporting centers, electronic monitoring programs, intensive supervision programs, jails, parole services, and half way houses. Furthermore, specific elemennts of corrections are designed to handle juvenile offenders only. The primary purpose of corrections are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. Which of these purposes is emphasized and accepted is dependent of the attitute of the scholar. With the complexity of corrections, there are four correctional ideologies that influence and guide the our correctional services : punishment, control, treatment and prevention. Punishment is associated with the justice model, control is associated with the custodial model, treatment is associated with the medical model, and prevention model is associated with the reintegration model. These diverse models have been reflections of the viewpoint of social solidarity, class interest, moralizing social institution in a given age and country. Criminology that contributes to society in a variety of ways, commenting three aspects ａ) a knowledge base from which to debunk crime myths, ｂ) the advancement of policy recommendations, ｃ) evaluation research, must give root and materials of those models positively and adequately. And then a given model should not be undisputed. Criminal policy is deeply interconnected with the interdependence of corrections and criminology.

Postmodern criminology is based upon the belief that past criminological approaches have failed to realistically assess the true causes of crime and have therefore failed offer workable solutions for crime control or if they have, that such theories and solutions may have been appropriate at one time but no longer apply to the postmodern era. It challenges and debunks existing perspectives on crime and crime control. Upon such assumptions, the article examines how we conceive of penal policy or prison in contrast to how it is conventionally understood, and outlines what an alternative direction might look like. It introduces peacemaking criminology, constitutive criminology and restorative justice for the development of a new “replacement discourse”. Peacemaking criminology holds that crime-control agencies and the citizens they serve should work together to alleviate social problems and human suffering and thus reduce crime. The main purpose of criminology is to promote a peaceful, just society rather than standing on empirical analysis of data, by drawing its inspiration from religious and philosophical teachings. Constitutive criminology builds on the belief that crime and its control cannot be separated from the totality of the structural and cultural contexts in which it is produced. Given this interrelated nature of social structure and human agents and their social and cultural productions in the coproduction of crime, it trys to promote a just policy of reconstruction through replacement discourse which is directed toward the dual process of deconstructing prevailing structures of meaning and displacing them with new conceptions, which convey alternative meaning. Restorative justice has been practiced as an alternative to existing justice system beyond philosophical teaching or religious ideology in various countries. It seeks to attain a balance between the legitimate needs of the community, the offender, and the victim. The healing of all parties involves many aspects, ranging from victim assistance initiatives to legislation supporting victim's compensation. It follows such guidelines that community are victims, we use punishment to pay back the community, we combine punishment with help, and we give community a voice in shaping restorative sanctions.

When examining existing theories of crime, we are led to an agreement that crime is eventually private as well as public evil. However this conclusion may neglect a possibility that whoever lives his life as a good citizen under the constraint of law in a nation-state may someday find himself to be a criminal. Crime is not just a problem caused by a special kind of man. Even if we can tell criminal activities as delinquent, it is not unreasonable that they are not abnormal. Based on the assumption that a few special persons commit crimes, so far most literatures on crime tend to concentrate on either some properties of criminals or the relation between environmental and human factors. Circumscribed by its narrow presupposition, criminology cannot but provide the crippled power of explanation over the ocean of criminal cases in reality. If we admit crime is a normal phenomenon of everyday social routine, it may be more profitable for the future studies of correction to focus on the question of how to defend our society from criminal delinquencies in practice than to make efforts in making conflictive arguments in theory. Also how to rehabilitate criminal victims who have been excluded from the process of criminal justice should be stressed as a main theme in light of criminal policies. In consideration of these problematics, this study tries to show the future direction of correction policies. Chapter 2 explains the existing theories and groups them into two families according to their analytic dimensions. Classifying the theories of innate or inherent criminality as of 'personal level causes,' I call the theories of socio-environmental factors as of 'social level causes.' In chapter 3, I examine both the existing theories on crime and some problems in the current corrective system with a critical viewpoint. In chapter 4, I want to present a few alternatives for the future direction of correction. These alternatives include the cooperation and coordination between criminal justice agencies, reparation for criminal victims, and the introduction of private jails or penitentiaries. In this article, I argue we should concentrate our attention rather on correcting offenders individually by changing their relations with structural factors than on searching for the more evident causes of crime. In terms of improvement I also propose some measures such as the introduction of governmental indemnification for the whole society as well as individuals directly victimized by crimes and the prisoners' reimbursement system for their own penitentiary costs. We are so deeply accustomed to the rational and mechanical type of assumption that we cannot be readily accept the critical review developed in this study. However we explore the causes of crime to improve our society in practice. If we accept this ultimate purpose of criminological studies, it cannot be denied the importance of practical efforts to enhance the efficiency of corrective policies as well as to realize common good for all the people pertinent to the social phenomena of crime including offenders as the objects of correction, victims, law enforcing agencies and even tax payers who want social security.

중국이 사회 전환기에 접어든 큰 맥락에서, 시장 경제는 충분히 성장했고, 시장 경제 주체들의 활동도 전례 없이 활발해졌고, 하지만 뇌물 수수도 함께 생겨났고, 점점 더 심해지고, 공정한 시장 질서를 파괴할 뿐만 아니라, 또한 중국 시장경제의 건전한 발전에 엄중한 영향을 끼쳤으며, 따라서 대중들이 이러한 행위에 대하여 형벌의 강도를 높여야 한다는 강력한 목소리를 불러일으켰으며, 중국의 입법자는 이에 효과적으로 응답하여 2006년 7월 전국인민대표대회 상무위원회에서 "형법개정안(6)"을 개정하여 통과시켰으며, 상업수수의 범위를 확대하였다. 학계에서도 상수뇌에 대한 관심을 소홀히 하지 않고 있다, 그러나 기존의 연구는 대부분 형법적인 관점에서 상수뇌에 대한 개념, 구성 특징 및 사법적 인정에 대한 분석과 해석에 치중하고 있다. 이러한 연구는 사후처벌의 보완을 위한 지도적인 역할을 하고 있다. 그러나 범죄학적으로 사업상 뇌물 수수에 대한 사전 예방과 통제에 관한 연구는 아직 미약하다. 본문은 사실학의 각도에서 상업 수수의 정의와 위해를 상술하고, 그 현존하는 특징과 유형을 귀납하며, 체계적으로 현재 중국 사회에 만연한 주요 원인을 고찰하고, 마지막에는 비교적 체계적인 예방 대책을 제출하여 상업 수수의 현상을 통제하기 위해 조금이나마 미약한 힘을 다하고자 한다.