개정형법상 유기징역형의 상한조정에 관한 고찰

It seems hard to avoid a criticism that the National Assembly made a rash decision of passing the amendment of criminal law in April 15, 2010. The law includes provisions about increasing the period of mandatory maximum prison term. It could cause problems that the National Assembly didn't have appropriate opinion surveying processes, such as hearings, and provide chances to scholars in delivering their thoughts regarding related issues when amending one of the basic laws in our society - the criminal law. Without sufficient discussions and reviews, passing the law based on the temporary trends in public opinion might easily gain political supports. However, the law of a preventive measure to deter crime raises questions about its real effect. Furthermore, it could distract our attention from improving our security system in the society to just punishing severely to the defendant. Sentencing practices following amending the criminal law should always consider the purpose of the amendment and also needs to take opinions from various strata of the society in operating the new rules. It is necessary that the law should bridge the gap between previous imprisonment punishment and life in prison punishment, but not lead to just increase in the period of sentence as a whole without considering situations. Rather it would be better to emphasize the function of the sentencing proceedings by promoting participation of commissioners, court sentencing researchers, probation officers and gathering opinions from them. Furthermore, the correctional system needs to be operated focusing on rehabilitation rather than punishing convicted criminals. The rehabilitation system should have a greater impact on reducing recidivism rates. Thus, to reduce recidivism rates, it is necessary to establish reasonable, strict and transparent parole standards. In order to put the correctional system under the judicial control, like European countries, we need to consider adopting correctional judges.