미국 노스캐롤라이나 주 양형기준제 연구

As a result of the citizens of this nation voicing their demand for fair and righteous sentencing, an advisory sentencing guidelines system was introduced. It has now been four years since the implementation of the first sentencing guidelines and despite the many expectations and concerns about its success, the sentencing guidelines system has become well rooted in our legal system. More importantly, the review and application of these guidelines have become common practice in the daily decision-making of judges and prosecutors in criminal procedure. After deliberating over what framework would be appropriate for Korea, the Sentencing Commission decided to adopt the individual and gradual approach in framing sentencing guidelines over the comprehensive and holistic approach which many jurisdictions in America, including the federal government, have adopted. Unfortunately, one of the main reasons for that decision was less out of principle but of time constraints as there was insufficient time to develop a comprehensive framework by the deadline imposed by the National Assembly. Despite its merits, the gradual approach has its limitations. Because individual guidelines are implemented gradually it is difficult to keep concrete sentencing periods balanced across all major crimes, to project prison populations, and to develop comprehensive correctional policies. In cases where the prison term of certain individual guidelines is changed due to aggravating or mitigating circumstances, it becomes difficult to adjust the prison terms of other guidelines accordingly. As the guidelines system presently in place has been implemented to a certain extent on a trial basis, it is timely to conduct further research on the subject. For these reasons it would be helpful to look into the North Carolina sentencing guidelines, one of the successful sentencing guidelines system among the federal and state guidelines in America. Before its implementation, the North Carolina Sentencing Commission categorized felonies and misdemeanors according to their seriousness and made a great effort in maintaining proportionality among the major crimes. North Carolina guidelines exercise a binding force on judges but it allows for appropriate judge's discretion in sentencing by providing broad sentencing ranges and sentencing options. In addition, the guidelines help to maintain manageable prison populations by projecting population changes resulting from new guidelines. The North Carolina sentencing guidelines have been incorporated into law, a sign that the State Congress has been actively engaged in establishing the guidelines. All have contributed to the guidelines' success. Although the Korean sentencing guidelines have been successful in many respects, it is uncertain as to whether they will achieve the level of sentencing reform to which the people aspire. To better implement the sentencing guidelines system we should learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions. The Korean National Assembly should take an active interest in establishing and revising sentencing guidelines as the need occurs. Further, if the current framework is to be maintained, it is imperative to find methods to ensure sentencing proportionality among major crimes. Finally, the Commission must keep up its endeavors in developing comprehensive correctional policies and projecting changes in prison populations following the implementation of new guidelines in order to maintain prison population at an appropriate level.