http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
이기헌 ( Ki Hun Lee ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2015 홍익법학 Vol.16 No.3
Many people assume it the best criminal policy to punish every criminal. However, proponents of labeling theory argue that punishing criminals can have the unintended consequence of amplifying crime problem. Whether state intervention works for reducing crime or increasing it is an important question not yet clearly answered. To find out some clues, I began by looking into the historical backgrounds of labeling theory and examined why labeling theorists believe that punishing criminals through the criminal justice system is dangerously criminogenic. Then I checked some empirical criticisms against labeling effects maintained by labeling theorists. (1) Some offenders become deeply involved in crime without labeling effect. (2) Labeling effect might vary by individual factors such as sociodemographic characteristics and stage in criminal career. (3) The deeper the offender involved in the criminal justice system, the more serious the labeling effect. I also referred to labeling theory``s marked influence on criminal justice system - Decriminalization, Diversion, Due process movement, Deinstitutionalzation - and evaluated it one by one. In Chapter V, I presented three recent theoretical extensions of the labeling perspective. (1) Defiance Theory; which also considers the crime reduction possibilities of sanctions (2) Procedural Justice Theory; which focuses on the importance of the manner in which sanctions are imposed (3) Shaming Theory; which emphasizes on individual differences in the social bond and persons’ emotional reaction to the label In Chapter VI, I introduced some new major domains of sociological inquiry which have been inspired by labelling perspective, which might be called as a sociology of societal reaction
이기헌 ( Ki Hun Lee ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2014 홍익법학 Vol.15 No.1
In Korea, it seems that due social interest is not paid on legalizing physician-assisted suicide while withdrawing life-sustaining treatments is expected to be legalized in the very near future. However, the quality of death in Korea is quite poor in terms of social perception of death, legal system related to death, pain control on dying patient, treatment level and burden of expenses. It must be the last happiness we can enjoy to determine the way of ending one`s life, because no one can escape death and no one can tell what kind of terrible pain would accompany death. Therefore, I referred to three major logical bases against active euthanasia, under which physician-assisted suicide comes. To find out whether there is a fundamental ethical difference between physician-assisted suicide and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments to the extent of prohibiting the former and allowing the latter, I examined into following arguments into detail. (1) Do we have the right to death? Affirmative. Because the right to death involves the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, it is the essential to right of freedom and liberty. (2) Is physician-assisted suicide more immoral than withdrawing life-sustaining treatments? Negative. As long as the patient wants to die, it makes no sense to appeal to the patient`s right not to be killed. Therefore, there is no moral difference between terminating treatment that keeps him alive, and helping him to end his life by providing lethal pills. (3) Does concern for abuse or misuse justify a total prohibition on all physicianassisted suicide? Negative. The various risks following physician-assisted suicide apply equally to withdrawing life-sustaining treatments, and the state is capable of addressing such dangers through proper regulations. After that, I introduced the current regulations and operation situation of Death with Dignity Act(1997) of Oregon state. Finally, I examined into the pros and cons of the physician-assisted suicide in the field of criminal law, and briefly presented my personal opinion.