RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    문제해결법원의 도입에 관한 검토

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A76471470

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

      In America, the problem-solving court movement emerged in 1980"s in response to frustration by both court system and the public to the large number of cases that seemed to be disposed repeatedly but not resolved. Judges revealed disappointment at "revolving-door justice", namely the awareness that criminal courts recycled offenders through system. Public opinion polls made the long list of complaints including that judges were not good at the real scene of crime, the needs of victims were not met sufficiently, and offenders couldn"t get out of the mire of the recursive crimes. This dismal scene of criminal justice demanded the dramatic shift of judges" role, from merely declaring guilt or innocence to solving the underlying problems of the defendant and improving public safety more actively. In response, an innovative group of lawyers and activists put to the test of new court system, reengineering how courts address such everyday problems as drugs, crime related mental disorders, neighbor nuisances including prostitution, and domestic violence. It is reported that their endeavor has produced not a few species of problem-solving courts over the total number of two thousands. This article describes four of the most prominent American problem-solving court models in terms of their origins, contents, differences from traditional court model, and evaluations. The first model is drug courts which integrate drug treatment services with criminal justice system case processing. The others include mental health courts which link mentally-ill offenders to medical treatment instead of punishment; community courts which seek to alleviate chronical neighborhood problems like street prostitution; domestic violence courts which address violence between intimates to have been regarded as domestic matters. This article also review the possibility of their introduction into Korean court system, particularly focusing on the debate about the philosophy and legal doctrine of problem-solving courts.
    번역하기

      In America, the problem-solving court movement emerged in 1980"s in response to frustration by both court system and the public to the large number of cases that seemed to be disposed repeatedly but not resolved. Judges revealed disap...

      In America, the problem-solving court movement emerged in 1980"s in response to frustration by both court system and the public to the large number of cases that seemed to be disposed repeatedly but not resolved. Judges revealed disappointment at "revolving-door justice", namely the awareness that criminal courts recycled offenders through system. Public opinion polls made the long list of complaints including that judges were not good at the real scene of crime, the needs of victims were not met sufficiently, and offenders couldn"t get out of the mire of the recursive crimes. This dismal scene of criminal justice demanded the dramatic shift of judges" role, from merely declaring guilt or innocence to solving the underlying problems of the defendant and improving public safety more actively. In response, an innovative group of lawyers and activists put to the test of new court system, reengineering how courts address such everyday problems as drugs, crime related mental disorders, neighbor nuisances including prostitution, and domestic violence. It is reported that their endeavor has produced not a few species of problem-solving courts over the total number of two thousands. This article describes four of the most prominent American problem-solving court models in terms of their origins, contents, differences from traditional court model, and evaluations. The first model is drug courts which integrate drug treatment services with criminal justice system case processing. The others include mental health courts which link mentally-ill offenders to medical treatment instead of punishment; community courts which seek to alleviate chronical neighborhood problems like street prostitution; domestic violence courts which address violence between intimates to have been regarded as domestic matters. This article also review the possibility of their introduction into Korean court system, particularly focusing on the debate about the philosophy and legal doctrine of problem-solving courts.

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2026 평가 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
    2020-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
    2017-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
    2013-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2010-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2008-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2005-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
    2004-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2003-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    학술지 인용정보
    기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
    2016 1.06 1.06 0.95
    KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
    0.94 1.03 1.215 0.18
    더보기

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼