재범 고위험자에 대한 보호관찰제도 연구 : 형사사법기관의 공조방안을 중심으로 = A Study on Probation and Parole System for the High-Probability of Reoffending Offenders : With Focus on Collaboration of Criminal Justice System

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Korea introduced the Probation and Parole System in 1989 and has operated it for 20 years. Despite the shortage of manpower and resources compared to the number of probationer and parolee, the Probation and Parole System has fulfilled its role as the final preventer of reoffending in local communities.
When the Social Protection Act was abolished in 2005, the Protective Watch System, the societal safety network against career criminals, was also abolished. In 2008, Electronic Monitoring System was introduced to supervise specific sex offenders. Along with the Probation and Parole System, it made it possible to protect the society from career sex offenders.
However, some criticized that it is difficult to control the high- probability of reoffending offenders in the society with the Probation and Parole System, which is only a small part of the criminal justice system, and the Probation and Parole authority that lacks human and material resources to execute the system.
Thus, Korea attempted a new approach to prevent the high- probability of reoffending offenders from recidivism. It involved input various tangible and intangible resources, such as authority, manpower, equipment, information, and experience, of the authorities of criminal justice system, including the police, the prosecution, the courts, and the correction.
This strategy is realized in various forms of collaboration, including the probation and parole authority's partnerships with the police, collaboration with the prosecution and the courts, information exchange with the correction, and integration with correction organizations.
In England, many related organizations of the communities, including the police, the courts, the probation and parole authority, and social welfare facilities form a multi-agency collaboration unit such as ‘MAPPA(Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement).’ It has actually been proven that such collaboration of related organizations is highly effective in preventing recidivism in the communities.
The aforementioned changes in the Probation and Parole System reflects the changes in awareness that fighting crime is no longer an issue controlled solely by the police or the probation and parole offices, but it is the responsibility of everyone in the society.
However, it is true that many related authorities, including the police, the prosecution, the courts, the corrections, and probation and parole authority have been rather passive in collaborating with one another to solve the problem of recidivism.
In this regard, this study discussed the collaboration of crime-related authorities as a reasonable solution to the problem of the high- probability of reoffending offenders. Also, it stressed that various crime-related authorities, including the ones mentioned above, should utilize their tangible and intangible resources under all governmental systems and proposed specific measures to do so.
The following summarizes the policies suggested in result of this study:
First, it is very important to collaborate with the police that has a powerful information network and ample manpower and equipment. In particular, it is important to build a system to notify the police immediately when the high-probability of reoffending offenders who registered in the protective monitoring system cannot be located to arrest him/her and prevent recidivism. There must also be a system that supports arrest a probationer or parolee that monitored by the Electronic Monitoring System when he/she violates the rules.
Second, when Collaborating with the prosecution, it is necessary to build a mutually collaborative relationships instead of the current hierarchical relationship between the probation and parole authority and the prosecutions. When a probation and parole officer applies for a warrant or revoke the probation or parole, there should be a more active communication between the organizations than now. Also, if a suspect is a reoffender, the prosecutors should refer to the database provided by the police, the probation and parole authority, and the correction authority to predict the possibility of reoffending and reflect it to his/her sentence.
Third, when collaborating with the courts, there should be a system through which criminals with psychological abnormalities can be identified and diagnosed in the early stage of trials. It should also be reflected in the process of correction and probation and parole. The presentence investigation system should be revitalized and information exchanges with the probation and parole authority should be strengthened.
Fourth, as for the relationships with the corrections, such as jails and confinement facilities, the probation and parole authority should be able to share various data on convicts' psychological information and correction programs. A close collaborative network is necessary between the probation and parole authority and the correction authority. In the long-term, the probation and parole organization and the correction organization should be integrated to control criminals more effectively.
What is most important is that the society should not think that the reoffending issue is a responsibility of a certain crime-related authority. The government should provide a common goal for all crime-related organizations, including the police, the prosecution, the courts, the corrections, and the probation and parole authority to pursue the mission of preventing reoffending in cooperation.
Also, it is worth considering the establishment of an official commission between crime-related organizations, as we can see in the case of England's MAPPA(Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement). Furthermore, the government's interests and cooperation are required to register and manage information about reoffenders in the Criminal Justice Information Integrated System, which is one of the long-term goals of the Ministry of Justice.
Last, future studies on the collaboration between the probation and parole authority and other crime-related organizations should include more substantial and in-depth discussions on the influence of their collaboration on the rate of recidivism in the communities and on the public safety.
Furthermore, I hope that many studies are performed in this field to accumulate empirical information on reducing the recidivism rate and contribute to establishing more effective policies in the Korean society.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서 론 = 1
• 제1절 연구의 목적 = 1
• 제2절 연구의 범위 및 방법 = 7
• 1. 연구의 범위 = 7
• 2. 연구의 방법 = 11
• 제2장 연구의 이론적 배경 = 14
• 제1절 보호관찰제도와 형사사법기관의 공조 = 14
• 1. 보호관찰제도의 의의 = 14
• 2. 형사사법기관의 공조 = 43
• 3. 보호관찰제도와 형사사법기관간 공조와의 관계 = 48
• 제2절 형사사법기관의 공조에 관한 이론적 논의 = 56
• 1. 범죄자 리엔트리 = 56
• 2. 다기관 협력 = 60
• 3. 사회적 자원 네트워크 = 62
• 4. 지역사회지향 전략 = 64
• 제3절 보호관찰기관과 형사사법기관의 공조시스템 = 69
• 1. 형사사법기관의 파트너십 구축시스템 = 69
• 2. 재범 고위험군 전담 관리시스템 = 75
• 3. 교정과 보호관찰의 통합운영시스템 = 80
• 제3장 보호관찰기관과 형사사법기관의 공조 현황 = 85
• 제1절 공조의 내용 = 85
• 1. 경찰과의 공조 = 85
• 2. 검찰과의 공조 = 90
• 3. 법원과의 공조 = 94
• 4. 교정기관과의 공조 = 101
• 제2절 공조상의 문제점 = 108
• 1. 형사사법기관 공동의 정책지표 부재 = 108
• 2. 형사사법기관간 정보교류의 미흡 = 112
• 3. 협력에 필요한 절차와 기준의 부족 = 116
• 제4장 보호관찰기관과 형사사법기관의 공조 활성화 방안 = 119
• 제1절 정책목표의 공유 및 평가 = 119
• 1. 재범방지 목표의 공유 = 119
• 2. 정책평가 기준의 확립 = 123
• 3. 관련 제도와 법령의 정비 = 125
• 제2절 보호관찰기관과 형사사법기관의 정보교류 확대 = 129
• 1. 양형정보시스템의 일원화 = 129
• 2. 범죄정보 공유의 확대 = 131
• 3. 재범자 정보의 통합관리 = 136
• 제3절 상설 협의체 구축 = 140
• 1. 형사사법협의체 구축·운용 = 140
• 2. 상호파견제를 통한 협력네트워크 구축 = 144
• 3. 교정과 보호관찰의 통합운영 = 147
• 제5장 결 론 = 152
• 참고문헌 = 159
• ABSTRACT = 172