최근 사형존폐론의 끝없이 대립되는 이론적 논쟁보다는 사형의 대체방안으로 적합한 것이 절대적 종신형인지 상대적 종신형인지의 문제가 핵심적인 주제로 부상하고 있다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 절대적 종신형의 도입론과 근거 및 제기되는 비판에 대해 구체적으로 검토하는 한편 상대적 종신형 도입론의 정당성과 문제점에 대해서 고찰하였다. 양 제도의 형벌로서의 정당성과 장⋅단점을 파악하고 현재의 우리나라 상황에서 절대적 종신형과 상대적 종신형을 도입할 경우 각각 발생하는 문제점과 비판을 다각적으로 검토함으로써 나아가 보다 바람직한 새 제도를 정비할 수 있고 그것이 한편으로는 사형폐지를 앞당기는 것에도 일조할 수 있다고 생각되기 때문이다. 본 논문의 연구결과 절대적 종신형은 응보감정의 충족이나 범죄예방, 그리고 사회방위 뿐 아니라 형벌선택의 다양성을 보장하는 한편 우리 형벌체계와도 부합한다는 측면에서 장점을 가진다. 위헌성과 재사회화의 문제도 사면⋅감형을 허용하고 교정처우를 잘 운용한다면 절대적 종신형의 도입을 필요적으로 반대할 근거는 되지 못한다. 유기징역 최고 50년, 무기징역시 가석방의 최소기간이 20년으로 규정되어 있는 현재 우리나라의 형벌체계에서 상대적 종신형을 도입할 의미와 필요성은 쇠퇴할 수밖에 없다. 현 상황에서 상대적 종신형의 도입시 형벌체계와의 균형성에 있어서 문제가 발생하고 가석방을 제한하기 위해 가석방 제도의 이원화나 사면법 개정 등 많은 난점이 발생할 것도 고려해야 한다. 따라서 현재 우리나라의 제도와 상황에서는 사형의 대체방안으로서 사면이나 감형은 허용하되 가석방이 없는 절대적 종신형을 도입하는 것이 보다 실현가능성이 높고 적합하다고 생각된다.

These people were wrongfully arrested, imprisoned and (in some cases tortured) by armed police, military and security forces as a part of the 4.3 Incident, without legitimate justification and without proper hearings or trial. It is essential theme that they spend their time in jail without doing any crime during the Jeju 4.3 Grand Tragedy. It is our second theme that they have suffered pains, trauma and lamentations from the Tragedy, then and now. These 11 cases represent desperate situation of violations of human rights of Jeju people during the Jeju 4.3 Grand Tragedy as it were : Gyeong-in Kim, Pyeong-guk Kim, Dong-su Park, Won-hyu Boo, Chun-ok Park, Keun-bang Yang, Il-hwa Yang, Hui-chun Oh, Chang-yong Hyun, U-ryong Hyun, and Byeongtae Jo

수형자의 인권 보호와 재사회화를 위한 입법과 정책 개발은 매우 더디다. 오히려 이미 법정화되어 있는 사항들도 실무에서 준수되지 못하고 있는 실정이다. 형사사법체계의 피의자, 피고인, 범죄피해자 등을 보호하기 위한 다양한 제도들과 비교해보면 그 열악함이 더욱 실감난다. 형의 집행 및 수용자의 처우에 관한 법률에 따르면 수형자들의 구금은 독거수용이 원칙이고 예외적으로 혼거수용이 인정될 수 있음에도 불구하고 현실적으로 혼거수용을 전제로 예외적으로 필요한 경우에 독거수용 시킨다고 할 수 있다. 즉 현실적으로는 행형시설의 미비 ‧ 국가재정의 취약‧인적자원의 부족 등으로 인하여 대부분 혼거수용방식이 사용되고 있는 것이다. 독거실 비율은 3%정도에 지나지 않는다. 독거수용도 계호상 독거수용이 대부분을 차지한다. 과밀한 혼거 수용은 수형자에게 최소한도의 사생활도 보장하지 못하고 구금장소는 범죄학습 장소로 전락하게 된다. 이러한 현실은 오히려 교정질서를 해치고 재사회화 이념을 무력화시킨다. 국제준칙이나 비교법적 검토를 통해서도 우리의 구금방식이 매우 낙후되어 있다는 점을 알 수 있다. 과밀수용은 시급히 해소되어야 한다. 단기적으로는 수형자에게 기본적으로 제공되어야 할 장소의 크기가 법적으로 규정될 필요가 있으며, 철저한 분류처우가 시행되어야 한다. 혼거수용은 3인 이상을 기준으로 한다는 현행 규정은 수형자 인권보호와 교정이념 실현에 무의미하다. 또한 다양한 개방처우가 개발․시행될 필요가 있다.

This study tried to explain the long-term effect of incarceration at the time of youth, and to suggest suitable treatments to prevent recidivism. For the research, a sample of 233 inmates who were within 6 months of release and over 2 years of incarceration were recruited at the 9 prisons. The main findings are the followings: First, inmates who were incarcerated as a youth (as younger they were at that age) had difficulty adapting to their families and the society. It seemed that they needed the constant observation and the support in their adaptation period. Secondly, inmates incarcerated in juveniles had a much higher and a more violent crime rate compared to the inmates incarcerated at the time of adult. Early state juvenile inmates needed an active assistance to prevent recidivism. In third, statistics showed that even though occupation training rate was high, few inmates had certificates among the inmates incarcerated in juveniles. It seems that there should be more motivative programs to make inmates more comfortable in participating in training programs. In forth, since most of the inmates are concerned about their life after their release, it is becoming important that there should be a more efficient program regarding the prevention of recidivism and widening the possibility of past inmates to getting employed.

최근 들어 재범자에 의한 범죄가 꾸준히 증가하면서 재범연구의 중요성이 커지고 있다. 1990년대 중반 이후 국내에서도 재범요인에 관한 실증적인 연구들이 시작되었으나 이러한 연구들은 대체로 재범에 관한 탐색적인 연구들로서 재범요인의 영향력을 일관성있게 보여주지는 못하였다. 더욱이 이전 연구에서 중요하게 언급된 일부 요인은 국내의 연구에서는 다뤄지지 못하였다. 이러한 배경에서 이 연구는 우리나라 성인범죄자의 재범에 영향을 미치는 요인들을 실증적으로 분석하였다. 연구의 초점을 재범억제를 위한 사회통제에 두고, 공식기관에 의한 형벌과 사회적 결속에 의한 비공식적인 통제를 다루었다. 이밖에도 범죄유형과 범죄경력, 개인적 특성 등의 재범요인을 분석에 도입하였다. 분석자료는 형사정책연구원이 범죄경력연구를 위해 수집한 재소자 공식자료와 설문조사 자료를 이용하였다. 분석방법으로는 생명표와 사건사분석법(Cox 회귀분석)을 활용하였다. 생명표 분석결과는 우리나라 범죄자들의 재범은 40%가 재범가능 한 시점부터 1년 이내, 80% 가량이 3년 이내의 짧은 시간에 발생하며, 배우자가 있는 기혼자는 독신자에 비해, 구금형을 받은 경우는 비구금형을 받은 경우에 비해 천천히 재범을 하는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 재범요인에 대한 회귀분석결과도 구금형과 결혼을 통한 사회적 결속이 재범억제에 유의미한 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 이로써 재범억제를 위한 형사정책에는 강한 형벌을 통한 공식적인 사회통제와 가족을 통한 사회결속과 비공식적인 사회통제 둘 다가 중요한 의미를 갖는다.

The imprisonment system has developed together with promotion of the human rights for criminals. Therefore, it appears that the imprisonment system as a humanitarian punishment substituting for physical punishment will continue to exist unless an alternative measure emerges. A human being is given protection for the fundamental human rights even if he or she is a criminal owing to the imprisonment system, and is able to escape from cruel torture and lashing. However, there had been much criticism on whether the human rights of prisoners are properly protected as expected during an execution process of imprisonment performed in a closed space. In addition, much more discussions on whether personal liberty indeed is the focus of freedom of a human being deprived of imprisonment are needed. As a human being is deprived of personal liberty, freedom other than such liberty actually is also deprived or infringed upon. Therefore, much efforts should be exerted on improvement of a disciplinary system and a correctional institution, protection of the right to write, improvement of medical service, and expansion of participation by non-government personnel in order to protect or promote the human rights of convicts within the facility. Although prisoners in the facility are the subject of correction, rehabilitation, and punishment, since they are weak, on the other hand, it is believed that a dispute over the infringement of the human rights will disappear naturally when thinking from their viewpoints and caring for with the same attitude as parents are accepted.

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.

In recent years most of correctional experts in Korea have worried about a "crisis in corrections" which followed a dramatic increase in prison population during the last four years since IMF impact. According to the Government's statistics, right after the economic crisis in 1998 the number of inmates has been increased almost 14.7%, achieving a record number surpassing 68,000 which is comparable to average number of inmates (58,000) during the last seven years(1991-1997)(Korea, The Ministry of Justice, 2001). Therefore, I am concerned about this crisis of correction and give a serious thought on what determines the incarceration rates. This study examines the determinants of Korean incarceration rates in an international perspective during the last ten years(between 1992-2001). Multiple measures of crime, economics, social characteristics, demographics, ideology and culture, sentencing and parole policy reforms, alternatives to corrections, and institutional conditions are evaluated in light of their ability to account for the variation in incarceration practices. The analysis will reveal that some of the variables above mentioned are associated with imprisonment. I assume that the four factors having the greatest direct impact on incarceration in korea will be the crime rate, sentencing and parole policy reforms, and institutional conditions.

Although the purposes of punishment vary with their theoretical standpoints, the function of "special deterrence" of the criminals should be the primary correctional goal. Article 1 of the Korean Correction Law defines that "the reintegration of inmates" is the main objectives of the execution of punishment. "A short-term imprisonment" which deprives criminals of their liberty for the short period of time is too short to run the rehabilitative programs for fulfilling the goal of "reintegration." In contrast, it provides sufficient time for the criminals to learn criminal techniques and attitudes from their prison colleagues. In this sense, some argue that this type of punishment has more negative effects rather than it serves the correctional goal. As a result, attempts are recently made to find out alternatives of the short-term deprivation of liberty(e.g. pecuniary punishment). However, there have been much controversies about the exact time-span of "the short-term" punishment and the clear diagnosis of the alleged negative impacts. This article, therefore, is designed first to illustrate possible negative effects of the short-term imprisonment with its relation to the penological thoughts, and then seek alternative types of punishment that better serve the correctional idea of "reintegration."

It is not related to construction of Article 62② whether “suspension of execution of a part of a imprisonment” is admitted or not, because a concept of ‘a part’ in Article 62② and a concept of ‘a part’ in suspension of execution of a part of a imprisonment are different. The question of “suspension of execution of a part of a imprisonment” is related to construction of Article 62①. While article 62① provide requisites for suspension of execution of sentence, Article 62② provide only suspension of execution of a part of sentence in case of concurrent imposing of punishment by article 62①. Therefore, it is difficult to comprehend that article 62② provide another requisites for suspension of execution of sentence as article 62①. And it is unreasonable to interpret “… the execution of the sentence may be suspended” as “… the execution of the whole of a sentence may be suspended” in article 62①. Because a concept of ‘a part’ in suspension of execution of a part of a sentence and a concept of ‘a part’ in Article 62② are different essentially, and because a concept of ‘the whole’ in suspension of execution of a part of a sentence and a concept of ‘the whole’ in Article 62② are different essentially. And ‘a sentence’ has two meaning: a sentence against a crime and a sentence against several crimes. Therefore, it is unreasonable to interpret that ‘a sentence’ in article 62② and in suspension of execution of a part of a sentence have same meaning. It is proper that suspension of execution of a part of a imprisonment is solved by not interpretation but legislation, because it is of great no advantage to the accused.