RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
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
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      복지레짐과 범죄 그리고 사회통합: 미국과 스웨덴과의 비교를 중심으로

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A108390515

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      Most studies of crime and social inequality consider social environment and social contexts. The welfare regime shares certain social values as well as specific programs and policies. From this, crime is a social problem and a problem to be solved through a social intervention. In this respect, the high level of equality, the socio-economic safety net, and the provision of universal welfare lead to more restorative and reintegrative punishments and crime control policies. As a result, depending on the social context and welfare regime, the crime control policy and social integration policy have a different appearance.
      The United States has the highest crime rate among 30 major developed countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In the United States, where there is a lack of a social system to help criminals re-enter to society, ex-convicts are experiencing unstable employment, low wages in the labor market and family disintegration. Sweden, on the other hand, has a tradition of low crime rate, incarceration and recidivism rate, and there is little stigma.
      Sweden, with its historical institutions and culture, shows Swedish penal exceptionalism, represented by low crime rates and imprisonment rates.
      In order to explain the difference between the two countries, this paper focused on the concept of welfare regime, and focused on the institutional reciprocity of welfare regime in the criminal justice system, correctional system, and social integration strategy. This paper examined the differences in crime control policies and institutions according to welfare regimes by comparing the United States and Sweden, the representative countries of liberal welfare regimes and social democratic welfare regimes. And also, this paper reviewed what the implications are. Through this, it was argued that the most effective counter-measures against the problems of crime are prevention rather than severe punishments. And in the event of a crime, it is necessary to provide a social system that helps criminals reintegrate into society. It emphasized that harsh punishment is not the only solution, and the best way to prevent crime is to establish a universal social safety net and institutionalize a resilient social integration strategy.
      번역하기

      Most studies of crime and social inequality consider social environment and social contexts. The welfare regime shares certain social values as well as specific programs and policies. From this, crime is a social problem and a problem to be solved thr...

      Most studies of crime and social inequality consider social environment and social contexts. The welfare regime shares certain social values as well as specific programs and policies. From this, crime is a social problem and a problem to be solved through a social intervention. In this respect, the high level of equality, the socio-economic safety net, and the provision of universal welfare lead to more restorative and reintegrative punishments and crime control policies. As a result, depending on the social context and welfare regime, the crime control policy and social integration policy have a different appearance.
      The United States has the highest crime rate among 30 major developed countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In the United States, where there is a lack of a social system to help criminals re-enter to society, ex-convicts are experiencing unstable employment, low wages in the labor market and family disintegration. Sweden, on the other hand, has a tradition of low crime rate, incarceration and recidivism rate, and there is little stigma.
      Sweden, with its historical institutions and culture, shows Swedish penal exceptionalism, represented by low crime rates and imprisonment rates.
      In order to explain the difference between the two countries, this paper focused on the concept of welfare regime, and focused on the institutional reciprocity of welfare regime in the criminal justice system, correctional system, and social integration strategy. This paper examined the differences in crime control policies and institutions according to welfare regimes by comparing the United States and Sweden, the representative countries of liberal welfare regimes and social democratic welfare regimes. And also, this paper reviewed what the implications are. Through this, it was argued that the most effective counter-measures against the problems of crime are prevention rather than severe punishments. And in the event of a crime, it is necessary to provide a social system that helps criminals reintegrate into society. It emphasized that harsh punishment is not the only solution, and the best way to prevent crime is to establish a universal social safety net and institutionalize a resilient social integration strategy.

      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

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼