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
It is not proper that constitutional court decided to be constitutionality for the article 18, clause 1, number 2 of the Public Office Election Law by 2007Hun-Ma1462 decision. This is because the purpose of a legislation of this same rule is not fair for the following reason. Namely, it makes it difficult for their re-socialization to restrict the right to vote of the prisoner whom a sentence caught punishment more than imprisonment. And it is not useful for the general prevention of a crime to restrict the right to vote of the prisoner whom a sentence caught punishment more than imprisonment.
Moreover, the anxiety to hurt fairness of the election that depended on antisocial inclination of a prisoner is never demonstrated. Also, this same rule uniformly or entirely restricts the right to vote of a prisoner excessively without thinking of any exception such as type of a crime, degree of quality of a crime, long or short of a penalty period, a parolee or a probationer and so on. Besides, this same rule uniformly or entirely restricts the right to vote of a prisoner without prescribing it so that a judge gives the right to vote of a prisoner to every case individually. Therefore, this same rule is violated a principle of balancing test. So, our country must abolish this same rule or revise it not to uniformly, entirely and automatically restricts the right to vote of a prisoner whom a sentence caught punishment more than imprisonment from now on.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (20)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0