http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 주제어 : mandatory guidelines (검색결과 4 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
에린머피 부산대학교 법학연구소 2015 법학연구 Vol.56 No.1
Since the 1970s, the United States has relied on Sentencing Guidelines and Mandatory Minimums to punish criminal defendants. The United States Sentencing Commission was created to help reduce sentencing disparity and create uniform sentencing in the federal criminal justice system. The implementation of the federal sentencing guidelines has resulted in numerous legislative and judicial battles and a drastic increase in the prison population. To decrease sentencing disparity, reduce prosecutorial favoritism and increase public trust in the criminal justice system, Korea has recently begun to implement the sentencing guidelines. In 2007, the Korean Sentencing Commission was created. Korea has chosen to implement the gradual and narrative model of sentencing guidelines rather than the “grid” model that the United States uses. This article will explore the history and results of the 40 years of United States sentencing guidelines and the emergence of the Korean sentencing guidelines and compare the two. Korea, a country with a nearly racially homogeneous population, a criminal justice system that does not engage in plea bargaining, and a comparatively low percentage of drug crimes system to the United States will not face some of the problems that the United States criminal justice system faces. Despite these differences, Korea is moving away from judicial discretion and can look to the past in the United States as a way to see the effects of lessened judicial discretion. By balancing the desire for conformity in sentencing with the need for judicial discretion and taking the gradual and narrative approach to sentencing guidelines, it is hopeful that Korea will avoid many of these problems and will not suffer from increased incarceration or any of the other problems that the United States has faced in the past 40 years.
-
김태완 국회예산정책처 2013 예산정책연구 Vol.2 No.2
Government spending is divided into two broad categories, mandatory and discretionary spending, by National Finance Law. Mandatory spending is further composed of statutory spending and interest payments. In Korea, since the law describes the properties of mandatory spending, specific guidelines are required to identify mandatory spending from each of government program. In this paper, we discuss guidelines and show the result of identification from FY2007 to FY2013. From FY2007 to FY2012, mandatory spending was increased 8.3 percent in average per year which is 2.0 percent point higher than total spending. Based on recent researches and government’s report, mandatory spending’s share in total spending will grow continuously at least five consecutive fiscal years. Furthermore recent budget increases on welfare and its burden on national budget allocations raise managemental issues on mandatory spending. Thus we benchmark the pay-as-you-go rule and suggest several proposals to apply it in Korea from legal and administrative aspects. 우리나의 경우 2010년 개정된 「국가재정법」에서 최초로 재정지출을 의무지출과 재량지출로 구분하고 있으며, 정부는 「2012~2016년 국가재정운용계획」에서 의무지출 전망 등을 국회에 제출하고 있다. 의무지출은 지출의무가 법률에 명시되고 지출규모가 법령 등에서 정해지는 재정지출사업으로 정의되며, 우리나라의 경우 의무지출의 성격을 규정하고 있기 때문에 재정지출 사업에서 이를 분류하기 위한 구체적 기준 등이 필요하다. 본고에서는 재정지출 사업에서 의무지출을 구분하기 위한 구체적 분류 기준을 제시하고 이를 바탕으로 의무지출 사업을 식별하며, 이를 바탕으로 2007년부터 2013년까지의 예․결산 추이를 분석한다. 분석결과 동 기간 중 의무지출 결산액의 연평균증가율은 8.3%로, 동 기간 중 총지출 연평균증가율 6.3%보다 2.0%p 높은 것으로 파악되었다. 이러한 사실은 중장기적 관점에서 볼 때, 법령의 변화가 없음에도 불구하고 의무지출이 총지출에서 차지하는 비중은 지속적으로 증가되어 국가재정운용의 경직성을 심화시킬 것으로 보인다. 특히 동 기간 중 복지 의무지출의 연평균증가율은 10.8%로 의무지출 및 총지출 연평균증가율에 비하여 각각 2.5%p, 4.5%p가 크다는 점은 복지 의무지출이 국가재정의 경직성에 가장 큰 영향을 미친다는 점을 알 수 있다. 복지 의무지출 등의 빠른 증가율뿐만 아니라 경기침체 및 인구 고령화 등 사회경제적 요인에 따른 의무지출 증가폭의 상승 등을 감안할 때, 현재의 시점에서 국가재정 운용 측면에서 의무지출에 대한 관리․통제 방안에 대한 논의가 필요할 것으로 보인다.
-
최준혁(Choi, Jun-Hyouk) 한국형사정책학회 2012 刑事政策 Vol.24 No.1
Parole Board in England and Wales is the independent body that protects the public by making risk accessments about prisoners to decide who may safely be released into community and who must remain in or be returned to custody. Slowly it becomes a civil liberties court, safeguarding the rights of the prisoner quite as much as the rights of the public. And offenders who receive ordinary determinate sentences of imprisonment of 12 months or longer are to be released automatically at the halfway point of ther sentences. Once released, the will - except for ‘recall’ case - remain on licence in the community and under the supervision of an offender manager until their full sentence has expired. parole procedure became also much fairer. Prisoner can make access to their dossiers, have the opportunity to make representation on their contents and hear reasons for the decisions that were taken. Sentencing guidelines in England and Wales are applicable in all criminal courts to ensure a consistent approach and transparency in sentencing. Even if Sentencing Council make these guidelines to promote a clear, fair and consistent approach to sentencing, guidelines are intended to create an approach and within that approach, judicial discretion is preserved. The Coronors and Justice Act (2009) allows sentence outside the guideline for particular case. This research shows, there is no definitive nexus between sentencing guideline and early release in Practice of England. Sentencing guideline and early release are different institutions with different purposes. Reform of parole system toward a fairer and transparent decision-making procedure by a courtlike body and safeguarding the rights of prisoners are that we must learn in parole system in England.
-
스콜라연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
