사이코패스의 형사책임능력 판단에 관한 법적 고찰

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In recent days, wicked crimes including serial killer and arson have frequently taken place, aiming at unspecific majority of people, and those who commit such crimes are generally called psychopaths. Affected by mental disorder, psychopaths are incapable of feeling guilty, and when it comes to interpersonal relationship they are short of their ability to empathize others, having proclivity to trick other people through their superficial emotion, and to perform brutal violence. According to Dr. Robert Hare, a renowned researcher in criminal psychology, psychopaths are extremely rational, recognizing what their action means and what the causes are. Being a psychopath is heavily influenced by genetic factor, and because psychopaths are usually not expected to have self-reflection or reformation due to their unique emotional characteristics, it is significant to identify their thought and feeling than their antisocial action. Therefore, considering their personality and their characteristics, they are defined to be “emotionally disturbed people with cognitive capacity and decision-making ability, who repeatedly reveal immoderate antisocial actions.”
Since psychopaths are not able to taste the profundity of sentiment, they not only cannot experience physiological changes that are followed by a specific sentiment, but also have neither morality nor conscience that makes an ordinary individual feel regret, humiliated, or guilty. Furthermore, they lack empathic ability that help understanding and feeling others’ sentiment and this psychological characteristic prevents them from comprehending their victims’ suffering and misery. Also, they act impetuously, impatiently and irresponsibly for consequences which are led by their misdeeds. Their irresponsibility can be seen throughout their whole lives, since they habitually repeat lying and tricking.
In this paper, the Common law, which contains well-established principles in mentally defective’s responsibility judgment (Zurechnungsfehigkeit), was mainly examined in comparison to our legal system, and the legal systems of Germany and Japan, which are considered to be the Continental law that is similar to ours, were secondarily examined. In the Common law, the principles that are historically applied to responsibility judgment are “Durham Rule,” which is based upon biological factor, “M’Naghten Rule,” which is based on recognition capability, “Irresistible Impulse Rule,” which is based on decision-making or self-control ability, and “Model Penal Code Rule,” which widely integrates the rest of principles above. However, since many people began to complain that these principles mostly take a role as an indulgence to mentally ill criminals, revised theory that modifies the penal law and ‘Guilty but Mentally ill (GBMI)’ principle have been enforced in US. A plea of GBMI distinguishes mental disorder from metal disease; therefore, when the criminal is judged to be mentally disordered, he or she is found not guilty, and when he or she is judged to be mentally diseased, he or she is found guilty, receiving a criminal penalty after taking medical treatment and custody. Although it is problematic to distinguish both, a plea of GBMI must be a positive example of punishment of psychopathic incident. Besides, although our legal system supports the Continental law, the system does not distinctly define mental disorder unlike those of Germany and Japan, having only Korean criminal law section 10. Therefore, by referring to the standard of judgment that defines mental disorder in the German legal system, our criminal law is required to be amended by adding a clear definition of ‘psychopath’ as well as their responsibility judgment definition. In Korea where the definition of ‘psychopath’ does not exist in law, it is controversial whether psychopaths’ responsibility judgment is reliable or not. As previously stated, because psychopaths are considered to have enough cognitive capacity and decision-making ability, they are not applicable to the Korean criminal law 10, a rule of mentally or physically handicapped. However, because they are lack of ethically emphatic ability and because they are very likely to commit crime whenever they desire by disregarding the moral requirement of law, they are highly likely to in danger of second conviction. Therefore, since they are criminals who violated law and are responsible for their actions, psychopaths are supposed to be liable for their misdeeds.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서론 1
• 제1절 연구의 목적 1
• 제2절 연구의 범위와 방법 3
• Ⅰ. 연구의 범위 3
• Ⅱ. 연구의 방법 5
• 제2장 사이코패스의 개념적 정의 및 판단 7
• 제1절 사이코패스의 개념과 특징 7
• Ⅰ. 사이코패스의 개념 7
• 1. 사이코패스에 대한 이해 7
• 2. 사이코패스의 정의 10
• Ⅱ. 사이코패스의 특징 13
• 1. 심리적 특성 13
• 2. 행동적 특성 16
• 제2절 사이코패스의 발생원인 18
• Ⅰ. 선천적 요인 19
• Ⅱ. 환경적 요인 21
• Ⅲ. 검토 22
• 제3절 사이코패스 평가도구 23
• Ⅰ. Psychopathy Checklist-Revised(PCL-R) 24
• Ⅱ. 사이코패스 평가도구의 형사법적 활용도 25
• 제4절 소결 26
• 제3장 형사책임능력의 일반적 고찰 28
• 제1절 책임원칙의 전제로서 자유의사 28
• Ⅰ. 개관 28
• Ⅱ. 책임형법의 토대 29
• 1. 자유의사를 책임능력의 기초로 하는 입장(비결정론) 30
• 2. 인간의 행위를 소질과 환경의 결과로 보는 입장(결정론) 31
• 3. 절충시키는 입장 32
• Ⅲ. 책임의 근거 33
• 1. 도의적 책임론 33
• 2. 사회적 책임론 34
• 3. 인격적 책임론 34
• Ⅳ. 검토 36
• 제2절 책임능력 37
• Ⅰ. 책임능력의 개념 37
• Ⅱ. 책임능력의 본질 38
• 1. 유책행위능력으로 보는 견해 38
• 2. 형벌적응능력으로 보는 견해 38
• 3. 유책행위능력인 동시에 수형능력으로 보는 견해 39
• Ⅲ. 책임능력의 규정방법 40
• 1. 생물학적 방법 40
• 2. 심리학적 방법 42
• 3. 혼합적 방법 43
• Ⅳ. 검토 44
• 제3절 우리 형법 제10조 제1항 및 제2항의 해석 45
• Ⅰ. 일반조항의 문제 45
• Ⅱ. 심신장애의 개념 46
• Ⅲ. 사물을 변별할 능력 48
• Ⅳ. 의사를 결정할 능력 49
• Ⅴ. 사물변별능력과 의사결정능력의 관계 51
• 제4절 소결 51
• 제4장 사이코패스의 책임능력에 관한 비교법적 검토 54
• 제1절 서설 54
• 제2절 영미법계 54
• Ⅰ. 이론적 배경 54
• Ⅱ. 정신이상항변(Insanity Defense)의 이론적 전개과정 55
• 1. 맥노튼 법칙(M’Naughten Rules) 55
• 2. 저항불능의 충동 테스트(Irresisitible Impulse Test) 57
• 3. 더램 법칙(Durham Rule) 58
• 4. 미국모범형법전(Model Penal Code) 59
• 5. 정신이상항변의 개정과 재고 60
• (1) GBMI 항변 61
• (2) 정신이상항변수정법령 63
• (3) 정신이상항변의 폐지 63
• 제3절 대륙법계 64
• Ⅰ. 독일 64
• Ⅱ. 일본 66
• 제4절 소결 68
• 제5장 사이코패스의 책임능력에 관한 형사법적 판단 69
• 제1절 사이코패스 책임능력의 판단기준 69
• 제2절 학설의 논의 70
• Ⅰ. 형사책임능력 긍정론 70
• Ⅱ. 형사책임능력 부정론 72
• Ⅲ. 평가 및 검토 73
• 제3절 사이코패스에 대한 처우 75
• 제4절 사이코패스의 형사법적 판단의 향후 전망 및 과제 76
• 제6장 결론 80
• 참고문헌 84
• ABSTRACT 89