지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In considering the practical aspect of responsibility, it is crucial to establish a certain limitation in invoking the power of justice, when the national level punishment takes away or limits people's freedom. This indicates two opposite directions : first, a practical restriction could be applied to its contents, and second, upon the basis of the purpose of the punishment, it could be expanded in order to prevent the crime. But in accordance with the notion of responsibility formed by the punishment theories of the constitutional state, the punishment must be imposed with the level of responsibility. The punishment cannot surpass the responsibility. Nevertheless, the notion of responsibility is very subjective and abstract, and thus, it is hard to clarify and suggest resonable guidelines of how the punishment and the responsibility could be correlated. This condition makes the following two questions.
First, how could we establish resonable punishment based on the correction between the responsibility and the punishment? Second, if it is necessary to consider the level of responsibility when determining the punishment, is the punishment sufficient in relation to it?
The answer for the first question is the level of responsibility is the principal to make the level of punishment. The answer for the second question is, however, the responsibility is not sufficient to decide the limit of the sentencing because of its unclear and subjective status. Thus it can be just considered to prevent the crime.
Thus this paper suggests that it is reasonable to add clauses enacting the notion of responsibility and the correlation between the responsibility and the prevention.
First, how could we establish resonable punishment based on the correction between the responsibility and the punishment? Second, if it is necessary to consider the level of responsibility when determining the punishment, is the punishment sufficient in relation to it?
The answer for the first question is the level of responsibility is the principal to make the level of punishment. The answer for the second question is, however, the responsibility is not sufficient to decide the limit of the sentencing because of its unclear and subjective status. Thus it can be just considered to prevent the crime.
Thus this paper suggests that it is reasonable to add clauses enacting the notion of responsibility and the correlation between the responsibility and the prevention.
목차
Ⅰ. 문제의 제기
Ⅱ. 책임의 통로로서의 형벌론
Ⅲ. 책임원칙은 양형의 기초 원리로 필요한가?
Ⅳ. 책임원칙은 양형의 원리로 충분한가?
Ⅴ. 문제의 해결 및 결론
참고문헌
〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
법정형체계의 정비방안
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2006 .12
-
THE LAW -EVERYONE’S RESPONSIBILITY
저스티스
1965 .04
-
Therapy or Punishment?
저스티스
1987 .12
-
형벌의 사회적 맥락 : 형벌사회학적 접근
교정연구
2006 .01
-
형벌의 철학적 기초 : 영미 형벌 정당화이론의 동향
중앙법학
2012 .09
-
처벌에 대한 사회학적 분석의 기초
한국사회과학연구
2004 .12
-
형사정책학적인 관점에서의 책임주의와 보안처분에 관계에 대한 고찰
교정연구
2002 .01
-
중국형법상 기업의 처벌제도
비교형사법연구
2011 .01
-
윤리경영실천과 기업의 경쟁력에 관한 연구
대한경영학회지
2004 .08
-
기업의 사회적 책임활동이 내부고객 만족과 조직몰입에 미치는 영향
서비스경영학회지
2010 .11
-
형벌이론과 양형
한양법학
2007 .08
-
사이버범죄에 대한 법인의 형사책임
비교형사법연구
2018 .01
-
형법상 책임의 본질에 대한 논쟁의 재조명
동아법학
2015 .05
-
사회적 책임 관련 특성이 소비자의사결정에 미치는 영향
소비문화연구
2018 .01
-
论公司社会责任的法律适用 - 以环境责任公益诉讼为研究视角 -
원광법학
2015 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-000583622