정신장애범죄자에 대한 사회내처우의 확대방안에 관한 고찰

강경래(Kang Kyung Rea) 인하대학교 법학연구소 2010 法學硏究 Vol.13 No.1

우리나라의 치료감호법 제1조에서는 정신장애범죄자의 처우와 관련하여 정신장애범죄자에 대한 적절한 보호와 치료를 통한 재범 위험성의 회피, 그리고 이에 따른 사회복귀의 촉진이 처우목표라는 것을 분명히 하고 있으며, 이를 위하여 제23조에서 치료위탁제도 등을 규정하고 있다. 하지만 이러한 치료위탁제도에서는 대상자의 치료 및 사회복귀와 관련된 책임의 전부를 친족 등에게 부담하게 하고 있어 그 실효성에 의문이 제기된다. 예를 들어 친족 등에게 경제적인 능력이 없는 경우에는 치료를 위한 위탁이 아니라 단순한 위탁조치에 그칠 수밖에 없고, 또한 일정한 사유로 인하여 치료가 중단된 경우 등에는 구체적으로 어떠한 조치가 이루어져야 하는 가에 대한 세부적인 규정이 마련되어 있지 않다. 결국 이러한 상황에서는 치료감호법이 목적으로 하는 정신장애범죄자의 재범 위험성의 회피와 사회복귀의 촉진을 기대할 수 없는 것이 우리의 현실이다. 이에 본고에서는 우리나라의 정신장애범죄자에 대한 처우와 정신장애범죄자에 대한 적극적인 사회복귀시책을 추진하고 있는 일본의 처우제도와의 비교검토를 통하여 우리의 문제점을 보다 명확히 함과 동시에 우리나라 정신장애 범죄자에 대한 사회복귀의 촉진을 위한 개선방안 등을 모색하였다. 정신장애자범죄자의 사회복귀를 위해서 무엇보다 중요한 것은 의료적 치료만이 아니라 복지적 지원이 함께 이루어져야 한다는 것이며, 이와 함께 사회적으로도 이들에 대한 편견과 차별을 없애기 위한 적극적이고 지속적인 노력이 필요하다고 할 수 있다.

미국의 손해배상명령제도에 관한 고찰

강경래(Kang, Kyung Rea) 동국대학교 사회과학연구원 2015 사회과학연구 Vol.22 No.1

1981년 『소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법』 에 의해 도입된 배상명령제도는 2005년의 법률개정에 따라 배상 신청범위에 위자료가 추가되었고, 2012년 1월에 일부 성폭력범죄에 대하여 배상명령의 신청을 허용하도록 하는 법률개정을 제외하고 별다른 변화과정없이 30년 이상 유지되고 있다. 이러한 배상명령은 범죄피해자의 신속한 구제와 소송경제의 도모, 그리고 형사판결과 민사판결의 모순을 피할 수 있다는 장점 등이 있는 제도이지만, 아직까지 적극적으로 활용되고 있지 못하는 것이 현실이다. 이러한 문제에는 대상사건범위의 제한과 광범위한 불가사유 등이 지적된다. 이와 달리 미국의 손해배상명령제도는 독립된 형사제재로서의 성격을 갖고 있어 벌금에 대한 우위성이 인정되며, 우리와 달리 법원이 배상명령을 하지 않을 경우에는 그 이유를 밝히도록 하고 있다. 또한 재산에 대한 피해, 손실 또는 파괴가 발생한 범죄의 경우, 피해, 손실 또는 파괴된 재산의 가치, 신체에의 상해가 발생한 범죄의 경우에는 의료 및 관련하는 서비스의 비용 및 신체적, 정신적, 그리고 심리적 치료에 관련하는 비용, 작업요법, 재활비용 및 일실이익, 그 외의 사망의 결과가 발생한 때에는 장례비용이 부과의 대상으로 하는 등 손해배상명령의 대상범죄를 거의 모든 범죄로 하고 있다. 또한 1994년의 여성에 대한 폭력법 에서는 아동 돌봄서비스, 여비, 당해범죄의 수사 혹은 소추에의 관여 또는 당해범죄와 관련되는 절차에의 참가 중에 발생한 비용 등까지 배상명령의 대상으로 하는 등 그 범위가 매우 광범위하다. 물론 이러한 것만으로 미국의 배상명령제도가 우리보다 우수하며 효과적이라고 평가할 수는 없다. 다만, 각국의 제도가 가지고 있는 특수성과 장점 등을 고려하여 이를 활용하는 것은 제도발전에 있어서 매우 중요한 작업이다. 이에 본 연구에서는 미국의 손해배상명령제도의 개요와 그 목적, 그리고 운영현황등을 검토함과 동시에, 이러한 결과를 토대로 향후 우리나라의 배상제도의 바람직한 방향성 등을 제시하였다. Crime victim compensation is a United States program to reimburse victims of violent crimes such as assault, homicide, rape, and, in some states, burglary as well as their families for many of their out of pocket expenses. Every state has a crime victim compensation program. Crime victim compensation is a government program to reimburse victims of violent crimes such as assault, homicide, rape, and, in some states, burglary as well as their families for many of their out of pocket expenses. Every state has a crime victim compensation program. Crime victim compensation programs will generally pay for:medical and dental expenses, counseling costs, funeral or burial expenses, and lost wages or support. Victims:The direct victims of a violent crime is generally eligible for compensation. Some states only compensate victims who were physically injured in the course of the crime, while others also compensate victims of violent crime who were traumatized but not physically injured by the crime. Family members:Families of homicide victims can get compensation to pay the medical bills and funeral or burial expenses, and to pay for counseling and loss of support. Some states will compensate family members in certain other types of cases, for example, paying for counseling for family members in cases of sexual assault, child abuse, or domestic violence. Most state compensation programs require that victims. Compensation can be paid even when no one is arrested or convicted for the crime.

미국의 소년사법제도의 기원 -요부양소년, 방임소년과 비행소년의 처우 및 통제에 관한 법률-

강경래 ( Kang Kyung-rea ) 한국소년정책학회 2016 少年保護硏究 Vol.29 No.4

The child-saving movement emerged in the United States during the nineteenth century and influenced the development of the juvenile justice system. Child-savers stressed the value of redemption and prevention through early identification of deviance and intervention in the form of education and training. Humanitism and altruism were not the only motivating factors for the child-savers. There is suggestions that an additional and perhaps overriding aim was to expand control over poor and immigrant children. The Child Savers were 20th Century Progressive era reformers whose intent was to mitigate the roots of child delinquency and to change the treatment of juveniles under the justice system. These women reformers organized in 1909 to stem the tide of 10,000 young offenders who passed annually through the city's court system. The greatest accomplishment of the Child Savers was the creation of the first juvenile court which appeared in Cook County, Illinois in 1899. This court was founded on two principles both highly advocated by the Child Savers. These two principles were formed on the basis that "juveniles were not ready to be held accountable for their actions" and "that they were not fully developed and could rehabilitate easier than adults". This issue of juvenile delinquency was a big issue between the 19th and the 20th centuries, therefore the contributions of the Child Savers, both good and bad are evident in their history. Also the establishment of juvenile courts in cities across the United States was one of the earliest social welfare reforms of the progressive Era, and represented a major change in the way in which the law dealt with wayward children. The essence of the juvenile court idea, and of the juvenile court movement, is the recognition of the obligation of the great mother state to her neglected and erring children, and her obligation to deal with them as children and wards, rather than to class them as criminals and drive them by harsh measures into the ranks of vice and crime.

소년원 처우의 실효성 확보방안 -8호 처분과 일본의 특수단기처우와의 비교검토를 중심으로-

강경래 ( Kang Kyung-rea ) 한국소년정책학회 2010 少年保護硏究 Vol.14 No.-

This paper compares and examines the institutionalization in juvenile reformatory for a month in Korean and the special short-period treatment in Japan, and simultaneously explores problems with the institutionalization in juvenile reformatory for a month in Korean and a plan for their improvements while considering problems raised in Japan. The results of the comparison between the institutionalization in juvenile reformatory for a month in Korean and the special short-period treatment in Japan can be summarized as follows. ⑴The special short-period treatment in Japan has concrete criteria about subjects compared to the institutionalization in juvenile reformatory for a month in Korean, and ⑵is carried out over the whole areas in Japan. ⑶Also most of the contents of the program are implemented by some external entrusted agencies as is not the case in Korean, and ⑷the Japanese program makes the least interventions in all of the component including education. However, the number of subjects to the Japanese program continues to decrease due to the insufficiency in the treatment based on juvenile delinquents characteristics, the over burdened staffs, the criticism about educational effects, and the problem of the stigma of the experience in juvenile reformatories. The institutionalization in juvenile reformatory for a month is one of the most innovative system among the institutional treatments, and hence expectation about its effectiveness is high while also the same extent of concerns exist. As one can understand from the case of the Japanese short-period treatment, in order to constantly obtain the effects meant by the treatment No. 8, we should, first of all, concretely specify subjects, generally examine the characteristics of and problems with individual subjects, and build various educational programs accordingly.

일본소년법의 엄벌화 정책은 성공하였는가? -2000년대 일본소년법 개정논의의 타당성 검토-

강경래 ( Kang Kyung-rea ) 한국소년정책학회 2018 少年保護硏究 Vol.31 No.3

日本の少年法研究者である浜井浩一教授は、「少年法成人年齢の引下げを巡る論議の問題点と課題」という論文で、「悪役(ヒール)としての少年法」という題名で日本の少年法改正論議を次のように評価している。 「少年法改正論議は,いつも決って少年による重大事件が発生した直後に盛り上がる。今回の成人年齢引下げも、公職選挙法案が国会に提出されたことが直接のきっかけとは成っているが、それを強く後押ししたのが川崎で起きた18歳の少年らによる中学1年生の男子殺人事件である。2015年3月25日の産経新聞は「日本の議論」というコラムの中で次のように記している。「凶悪な少年事件が起きるたび、改正の是非が問われる少年法。川崎市中1殺害事件を機に、再びその議論が熱を帯びそうだ。折しも今国会では投票権を18歳以上に引き下げる公職選挙法改正案が提出されており、少年法の適用年齢もこれに合わせるべきとの意見が出ている」。」 このような評価と同じく、2000年代の日本少年法改正は偶然にも(?)社会に大きな衝撃を与えた凶悪な少年犯罪の発生と共に論議され、その後、少年犯罪に対する過度な社会的関心を背景に改善更生のための保護より積極的な処罰の必要性が強調されることになった。 最近日本では、少年法適用年齢を現在の20歳未満から18歳未満に引下げることを主な内容とする少年法改正論議が行われている。表面的には2015年6月の「公職選挙法等の一部を改正する法律」の施行による措置であるとしているが、こうした改正論議に関連しても2014年7月の佐世保高1女子殺害事件と同年12月の名古屋女子学生殺人事件、2015年1月の川崎中1殺害事件等を機に積極的に論議され、こうした論議の結果はいつも厳罰化に結びつくとの共通点がある。 このように2000年代の日本の少年法改正の特徴は、特別な少年事件を機に少年犯罪の量的増加と質的な凶悪化を強調し、結果的に保護より積極的な処罰を強める改正として帰結されることになった。しかし、こうした改正論議過程では、少年犯罪の実態と厳罰化の少年犯罪抑止効果に対する激しい対立論争がありこうした対立は今も続いている。 したがってこの研究では、2000年代の日本の少年法改正論議過程とその中で提示された立法事実の有無を統計等を通して検討することで厳罰化改正の正当性有無の検討をその目的とする。また、このような検討は、厳罰化政策の論拠として提示された一般予防効果の有無を確認することができると思われる。 こうした検討は、厳罰化政策の正当性、すなわち、厳罰化政策が強力な犯罪抑止効果をもたらすいう一般的な信頼の妥当性を確認することができることから最近の我々の少年法改正論議にも方向性を示すことが期待される。

일본의 공익통보자보호제도에 관한 고찰 : 2020년 공익통보자보호법의 일부를 개정하는 법률을 중심으로

강경래(Kang, Kyung Rea) 한국부패학회 2020 한국부패학회보 Vol.25 No.4

본 연구에서는 일본의 공익통보자보호법의 개요와 실효성과 관련된 비판과 논의 등을 중심으로 검토함과 동시에 2020년의 공익통보자보호법의 일부를 개정하는 법률에 대한 주요내용을 검토하였다. 일본에서는 1990년대부터 기업의 위법행위를 내부고발한 자에 대해서 고용주가 해고 등의 불이익 처분을 한 사례가 있었고, 이에 노동자가 해고 등의 불이익 처분에 대한 무효소송을 제기하여 재판과정에서 내부고발의 정당성과 노동자의 보호와 관련된 일정한 판단기준이 형성되어 왔다. 이에 2000년대 이후부터 대기업에서도 위법행위를 발견한 종업원이 내부고발을 하는 등 내부고발에 대한 사회적 관심이 높아졌으며, 이러한 공익통보자보호제도의 입법화의 요청에 따라 공익통보자보호법이 제정되었다. 일본의 공익통보자보호법은 통보자의 보호를 도모함과 동시에 국민의 생명과 신체, 그리고 재산 그 외의 이익의 보호에 관계되는 법규의 준수를 도모하여, 국민생활의 안정과 사회경제의 건전한 발전에 이바지 하는 것을 목적으로 하고 있다. 즉, 여기에서 말하는 공익통보란 ⑴노동자(공무원을 포함)가 ⑵부정한 목적이 아닌 ⑶노무제공처 등에 대해서 ⑷통보대상사실이 ⑸발생하거나 또는 확실히 발행하려는 사실을 ⑹통보처에 통보하는 것을 말한다. 일본의 공익통보자보호법의 특징은 공익통보자의 적극적인 보호만이 아니라 기업의 법령준수경영의 강화를 법률의 주요한 목적으로 하고 있으며, 개정 법률에서도 내부통제시스템을 의무화함으로써 기업 스스로가 불법행위를 방지하고 법령준수경영의 강화를 위해 스스로 노력하는 환경을 조성하고자 한다는 점에 있다. 내부고발은 기업의 공익침해행위가 발생한 이후에 이루어지는 것으로 국민생활의 안정과 투명하고 깨끗한 사회풍토의 확립이라는 목표를 위해서는 이러한 내부고발이 이루어지지 않도록 처음부터 기업스스로가 법령을 준수하는 경영을 통하여 위법행위를 사전에 예방할 수 있도록 유도하는 법체제의 구축은 매우 중요하다. This study studies the outline and problems of the Whistleblower Protection Act in Japan, and the main contents of the revised Whistleblower Protection Act of 2020. Recently, a series of cases in which corporate misdeeds, which were injurious to consumer safety, such as the false labeling of food products, greatly undermined public trust, especially consumer trust. Many of these corporate misdeeds were brought to light through information provided by concerned parties within corporations. Based on these circumstances, the Whistleblower Protection Act came into force (in April, 2006) in order to protect whistleblowers, to ensure that workers will not suffer disadvantages, such as dismissal, for disclosing information in public interest. The following are the major points of the Whistleblower Protection Act: (i) workers are protected from disadvantages, such as dismissal, for disclosing information in the interest of the public; (ii) information accepted from whistleblowers covers criminal and illegal acts in violation of the provisions of the laws that have a bearing on people s lives, bodies, and property; (iii) institutions to which information is reported are classified into in-house bodies of corporations, administrative institutions, and other institutions outside corporations . Conditions for the protection of whistleblowers are set by each institution to which information is reported. Based on above, in this report, the range and the directionality of the expansion of the Whistleblower Protection Act were pointed out. A feature of Japan s Whistleblower Protection Law is that it gives priority to whistleblowers inside companies, so companies themselves create an environment where they make voluntary efforts to prevent illegal activities and comply with laws and regulations. It is very important to establish a legal system that guides companies to prevent illegal acts in advance by actively protecting whistleblowers and strengthening transparency through management that complies with the laws of the company.

소년법상의 비행소년에 대한 임시조치 -한국·미국·일본의 관호제도의 비교검토를 중심으로-

강경래 ( Kang Kyung-rea ) 한국소년정책학회 2015 少年保護硏究 Vol.28 No.-

When the police, etc. clear a juvenile offender who committed an offense with statutory penalty of fine or lighter punishment, they shall refer the case to a family court, and with that of heavier punishment to a public prosecutor, excluding a case where the juvenile offender is cleared for violations of Road Traffic Act and for which the pecuniary penalty is paid in accordance with the traffic infraction notification system. A public prosecutor investigates the case and then refers it to a family court if there is probable cause to suspect that an offence has been committed or any other reason to subject the case to a hearing of a family court. With juvenile offenders under 14 and pre-delinquents younger than 14 years of age, measures provided by the Child Welfare Act have priority and a family court may subject them to a hearing only when a prefectural governor or the director of a child consultation center refers the juvenile to a family court. Police officers may investigate a case if necessary when they discover a juvenile and there exists, in reasonable view of objective circumstances, probable cause to suspect that he/she is a juvenile offender under 14. The police shall refer the case to the director of a child consultation center if they consider that the act of the juvenile involved specific types of serious offenses as a result of the investigation. The prefectural governor or the director of a child consultation center will refer the juvenile they have been notified of or received, etc. to a family court if they deem it appropriate to subject the juvenile to a hearing in a family court. When juvenile offenders under 14 violated laws or regulations involving specific types of serious offenses, however, the governor/director is required, in principle, to refer the case to a family court. 2 Procedure in a family court. (1) Investigation in a family court A family court is required to investigate any case referred by public prosecutors, etc. It can order a family court research law clerk to investigate it. (2) Classification in a juvenile classification home A family court may refer a juvenile to a juvenile classification home and request a classification of their predisposition by a ruling (protective detention) if it is needed for a hearing. In this case, the juvenile classification home accommodates the referred juvenile and classifies his/her predisposition based on the expertise it has in medicine, psychology, pedagogy, sociology, and other specialized fields in order to contribute to the hearing, etc. in a family court. As of April 1, 2014, there were 1 juvenile classification homes nationwide. In this study, South Korea and Japan, and were to be compared and discussed American protective detention.

일본 의료소년원의 현황과 평가

강경래 ( Kang Kyung-rea ) 한국소년정책학회 2014 少年保護硏究 Vol.27 No.-

The purposes of this study are to review Treatment provided in a Japanese medical reformatory. The following four types of Japan juvenile training schools are used to accommodate juveniles according to their age, level of criminal tendency, and physical and mental condition, etc. at the time of their admission: (1)Primary juvenile training schools:Juveniles generally aged 12 or older but typically younger than 16 and without any serious physical/mental disabilities; (2)Middle juvenile training schools:Juveniles generally aged 16 or older but younger than 20 and without any serious physical/mental disabilities; (3)Special juvenile training schools:Juveniles generally aged 16 or older but younger than 23 and without any serious physical/mental disabilities but with strong criminal tendencies. However, juveniles younger than 16 sentenced to imprisonment can also be accommodated here; and (4)Medical juvenile training schools: Juveniles generally aged 12 or older but younger than 26 and with serious physical/mental disabilities. Treatment courses are established with both general short-term treatment program and long-term treatment program (with further divisions of the treatment courses also being available within the long-term treatment program). All the juveniles in juvenile training schools are provided with guidance in five areas of correctional education, namely daily life guidance, vocational guidance, academic education, health and physical education, and special activities. However, they categorize each juvenile to one of the treatment courses each of which is set with different weight of priority on each of these five areas of correctional education, according to the criminal tendency, academic ability, future plans, and physical and mental condition of each juvenile to implement the treatment in the manner most effective (medical treatment has priority in the medical treatment course). The treatment course also notes the key matters that require attention in the course of implementing the correctional education.

우리나라의 교정시설의 민영화

강경래(Kang Kyung Rea) 한국공안행정학회 2010 한국공안행정학회보 Vol.19 No.1

교정시설의 민영화는 수용인원의 증가와 이에 따른 수용경비의 증대, 교정교육의 실패에 따른 재범율의 증가라는 교정행정의 위기를 극복하고자 하는 현실적인 대안으로 탄생한 것이라고 할 수 있다. 이러한 교정시설의 민영화는 두 가지의 형태로 발전되어 왔는데, 먼저, 영리교도소는 수용경비의 증가라는 재정적인 측면에 대한 대책으로써 민간의 재원과 경영기법을 교정행정에 끌어들여 재정의 효율적인 경감을 도모하고자 하는 것이다. 또 다른 유형인 종교교도소는 교정교화의 실패라는 측면에 초점을 맞추어 종교프로그램에 실시에 따라 범죄자의 사회복귀를 도모하고자 하는 것으로 각 유형은 그 성격을 달리한다. 우리나라는 1999년 제정된 「민영교도소설치 및 운영에 관한 법률」에 따라 종교단체인 재단법인 '아가페'가 위탁계약을 체결하여 그 설립을 눈앞에 두고 있다. 우리의 민영교도소는 종교교도소의 범죄자의 사회복귀의 실현과 영리교도소의 효율적인 운영방식을 결합한 형태로 두 가지의 모델의 장점을 고루 살리는 새로운 통합적인 모델을 구축하였다고 평가할 수 있다. 하지만 국가형벌권의 민간이양이라는 시도에 관한 국민적인 합의와 사회공감대의 형성의 미미, 그리고 혐오시설의 하나로 인식되는 교도소설립에 대한 지역의 반대 등은 교정시설의 민영화에 있어서 현실적인 장애로 남아있다. 이에 본 논문에서는 이러한 문제점 등에 대처방안으로써 세계 각국의 여러 형태의 교정시설의 민영화에 대한 검토와 더불어 혼합운영형의 교정시설의 민영화 도입 등을 제안하고 있다. The privatization of correctional facilities is considered a practical solution to overcome problems in correctional administration such as increase in the number of inmates, the rise of imprisonment expenses, and the growing recidivism rate resulting from failure in correction. The privatization of correctional facilities has been developed in two forms. One, which is a financial measure against the rise of imprisonment expenses, is introducing private financial resources and management techniques to correctional administration to reduce costs efficiently. The other, which is focused on failure in correction and edification, is a religious prison that pursues criminals' social rehabilitation through religious programs. In Korea, under the Act on the Installation and Operation of Private Prisons enacted in 1999, Foundation 'Agape', a religious institution, made a contract with the government and has its establishment just ahead. Private prisons in Korea are considered to have established a new integrated model that pursues both criminals' social rehabilitation and efficient operation by combining the advantages of religious prisons and profit-making ones. However, there are still practical obstacles to the privatization of correctional facilities such as lack of national agreement and social consensus on the transfer of national penalty rights to private sectors and local residents' resistance to the establishment of a prison, which is regarded as a disgusting facility, in their area. As solutions for these problems, this study examined various forms of privatization of correctional facilities in other countries and proposed the introduction of mixed-form privatization of correctional facilities.

미국소년사법제도의 선의권(이송제도(Transfer System))의 변화 -엄벌화 정책에서 보호주의로의 회귀-

강경래 ( Kang Kyung-rea ) 한국소년정책학회 2017 少年保護硏究 Vol.30 No.1

One of the more hotly debated subjects with regard to juveniles has to do with the option to waiver to adult court. Currently, there are three mechanisms by which a juvenile's case may be waived to an adult court. Judicial Waiver Offenses: A judicial waiver occurs when a juvenile court judge transfers a case from juvenile to adult court in order to deny the juvenile the protections that juvenile jurisdictions provide. All states now provide for judicial waiver and have set a variety of lower age limits. In most states, the youngest offender who can be waived to adult court is a 17 or 18-year-old, although in some states, this age is as low as 13 or 14. Usually, the offense allegedly committed must be particularly egregious in order for the case to be waived judicially, or there must be a long history of offenses. Statutory Exclusion: By 1997, 28 states had statutory exclusions, which are provisions in the law to exclude some offenses, such as first-degree murder, from juvenile court jurisdiction. This number is expected to increase. Concurrent Jurisdiction: Some states also have a legal provision which allows the prosecutor to file a juvenile case in both juvenile and adult court because the offense and the age of the accused meet certain criteria. Prosecutorial transfer does not have to meet the due process requirement stipulated by Kent v. U.S. Approximately 15 states currently have this provision, although this number is expected to increase in the next few years. The most important case guiding juvenile waiver is Breed v. Jones (1975). This case designates that a juvenile cannot be adjudicated in a juvenile court then be waived and tried in an adult court. To do so is to try the youth twice for the same crime (double jeopardy), which violates the Fifth Amendment. However, in reality, this case did not have much impact on the juvenile system since juveniles are now subject to a waiver hearing which appears to be similar to a trial except in outcome. Impact of Transfer to Adult Court: Transfer into an adult court proceeding can result in several negative consequences for the accused. Juvenile proceedings take place in a closed courtroom, while adult proceedings are typically public. A conviction record is generally sealed for juveniles, while adult records are frequently publicly accessible. Adult penalties tend to be much harsher than the penalties for the comparable juvenile offenses. The juvenile courts tend to be focused on the rehabilitation of the accused, unlike adult courts which may be focused more on punishment. Sadly, juveniles who serve jail and prison time are much more likely to be assaulted than those serving in juvenile facilities.