성폭력범죄자의 성충동약물치료에 관한 법률의 헌법적·형사정책적 검토
Constitutionality·Criminal policy of review the Act on Medication Treatment of Sexual Impulse of Sex Offenders
박봉진(호서대학교)
47호, 171~195쪽
초록
아동성폭력범죄는 사회적으로 상당히 심각한 문제이며, 피해자의 정신적 고통이나 가족들과 국민들의 불안감을 생각한다면 효과적인 해결책을 찾아야만 한다. 그리하여 2010년 국회는 화학적거세를 주요내용으로 하는 법안을 통과시켜 2011년 7월24일부터 시행되고 있다. 화학적 거세는 의과학적으로 제안되는 약물을 주입하여 성충동을 억제시키는 방안이며, 일부외국에서는 이미 시행되고 있는 제도이다. 그러나 성충동약물치료는 인권을 무시하고 침해한 졸속정책의 일환으로 본다. 그것은 치료명령부과의 주체, 초범자에 대한 약물치료의 허용, 심신상실자에 대한 약물치료의 허용, 약물치료대상자의 동의없이도 강제적으로 시행할 수 있으며, 화학적거세의 부작용 및 실효성문제와 화학적거세가 대체형벌이 아닌 중복형벌로 가능하다는 헌법적·형사정책적 문제점이 제시되고 있기 때문이다. 헌법적으로 보면 이중처벌금지의 원칙위반에는 해당되지 않겠지만 그 구체적인 집행에 있어 치료목적의 심리치료를 병행하지 않는다면 과잉금지 원칙에 위반할 것으로 보이며, 기존의 수형자에 대한 동의를 통한 치료명령은 그 동의의 적절성에 위헌의 소지가 있다.
Abstract
As a measure to prevent recurrence of sex crime, “Act on Medication Treatment of Sexual Impulse of Sex Offenders” was enacted on July 24, 2011. the researcher is able to reach a conclusion that the foundation of the Sexual Impulse Medication Treatment Act is insecure, and includes a number of unconstitutional factors. As long as people understand this act with such significance, it seems that there are almost no grounds for the Sexual Impulse Medication Treatment Act. Therefore, the Sexual Impulse Medication Treatment Act needs to be revised rather than being enforced under the situation where the issues related to human rights abuses have not been completely resolved. Castration may be performed in two ways : through medication or through the surgical removal of the testes. chemical castration has an issue of infringing upon right to self-determination in one's body or reproduction, right to be not impaired in one's body. If the administration of chemical castration is based on informed consent, castration doesn't infringe upon the rights. chemical castration has been criticized as inhuman critical policy, in the consideration of constitutionality. As the law shows, a mandatory injection without consent could be unconstitutional. Although chemical treatments can decrease the aggressive fantasies of male offenders, it should be reviewed in line of criminal rationality and specific data-analysing. chemical castration is not the perfact solution to inhibit child molestation, additionally it discourages the rationality of criminology which dignifies human rights. sugical castration can not be considered as a reliable treatment for sex offenders. This raises the question whether the treatment can be considered legally permissible. It is also questionable if the procedure can pass the constitutionality test with regard to the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degarding treatment or punishment, the fundamental rights to marry and found a family as well as to human dignity and integrity. The government should also try to give much safer options for them and invest many resources for solving their psychopathic problems.
- 발행기관:
- 한국법학회
- DOI:
- http://dx.doi.org/
- 분류:
- 법학