지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Though an arrest is one of the most efficient tools in search for the substantial truth, it also deprives suspects of their liberty to go where they please. Therefore, balancing the conflicting principles of the investigation of crime and protection of human rights would be a rational and practical solution.
Criminal Procedure Act, valid from January 1st, 2008, proclaims the principle of a Non-Arrest. In addition, the renewed legislation has improved the problem of arrest-related provisions. Even so, as far as arresting practices are concerned, criminal investigators still prefer Urgent Arrest, which is permitted in exceptional cases, to Ordinary Arrest executed by a judge-issued Arrest Warrant. Also, there has not been a proper control by judges of the period between the time of Urgent Arrest or Immediate On-sight Arrest and the time when Warrants are issued by the Court. In brief, there still remain various problems with regard to the principle of an Arrest Warrant.
One of the primary characteristic of Criminal Procedural Act is not to give the rights to seek an Arrest Warrant by police investigators. Furthermore, the power to check and control potential human rights infringements by police detectives is conferred upon Prosecutors, who have the same status of criminal investigators as police investigators. Additionally, Urgent Arrest and Immediate On-sight Arrest are also permitted as an exception along with an Ordinary Arrest by Warrant. These weak points result not only in the inefficiency of investigation, but also in the vulnerability to encroachment of suspects’ human rights.
To better the situations, the right to have an independent right to decide whether to arrest a suspectneeds to be guaranteed to police investigators. In checking and controlling this legal power, the Court, not a criminal investigation institution like Prosecutor’s Office, must have the right to intervene immediately in police misbehaviors. Further, in terms of Urgent Arrest and Immediate On-sight Arrest, systematic improvements are necessary, like having more specific criteria and strengthening court’s control in arresting suspects.
Criminal Procedure Act, valid from January 1st, 2008, proclaims the principle of a Non-Arrest. In addition, the renewed legislation has improved the problem of arrest-related provisions. Even so, as far as arresting practices are concerned, criminal investigators still prefer Urgent Arrest, which is permitted in exceptional cases, to Ordinary Arrest executed by a judge-issued Arrest Warrant. Also, there has not been a proper control by judges of the period between the time of Urgent Arrest or Immediate On-sight Arrest and the time when Warrants are issued by the Court. In brief, there still remain various problems with regard to the principle of an Arrest Warrant.
One of the primary characteristic of Criminal Procedural Act is not to give the rights to seek an Arrest Warrant by police investigators. Furthermore, the power to check and control potential human rights infringements by police detectives is conferred upon Prosecutors, who have the same status of criminal investigators as police investigators. Additionally, Urgent Arrest and Immediate On-sight Arrest are also permitted as an exception along with an Ordinary Arrest by Warrant. These weak points result not only in the inefficiency of investigation, but also in the vulnerability to encroachment of suspects’ human rights.
To better the situations, the right to have an independent right to decide whether to arrest a suspectneeds to be guaranteed to police investigators. In checking and controlling this legal power, the Court, not a criminal investigation institution like Prosecutor’s Office, must have the right to intervene immediately in police misbehaviors. Further, in terms of Urgent Arrest and Immediate On-sight Arrest, systematic improvements are necessary, like having more specific criteria and strengthening court’s control in arresting suspects.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 각국의 체포제도
Ⅲ. 우리나라의 체포제도
Ⅳ. 현행 형사소송법상 체포제도의 문제점 검토
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌 (22)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
형사소송법상 긴급체포제도에 관한 재검토
형사법연구
2011 .01
-
긴급체포제도에 관한 소고
비교법학연구
2007 .09
-
수사상 긴급체포 요건과 운용
형사법연구
2011 .01
-
긴급체포의 규정과 운용에 대한 비판적 고찰
외법논집
2012 .01
-
수사기관의 무영장체포와 영장주의의 실질적 의미
法學論文集
2011 .01
-
중국의 拘束制度에 대한 개혁
동아법학
2009 .02
-
한국과 중국의 체포구속제도의 비교연구
비교형사법연구
2009 .01
-
경찰의 체포권 남용방지에 관한 연구
법학연구
2010 .11
-
인신구속제도의 일원화에 관한 연구 : 주요 선진국의 인신구속제도 비교를 중심으로
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2006 .12
-
긴급체포의 명칭과 요건상의 대상범죄에 대한 검토
동아법학
2010 .05
-
수사상 긴급체포제도의 운용에 대한 재검토
법학연구
2015 .06
-
체포제도에 관한 연구
형사정책연구원 연구총서
1997 .12
-
소말리아 해적 사건을 통해 본 국제해적처리를 위한 형사소송법 개정 및 입법에 관한 연구
法學論文集
2014 .01
-
현행범 체포의 요건과 절차에 대한 올바른 해석과 입법론
법학논총
2018 .10
-
긴급체포제도의 문제점과 개선방안
법학논집
2015 .01
-
기동경찰 체포술에 대한 연구
경찰학연구
2010 .08
-
구속전 피의자심문제도에 관한 비판적 검토
형사정책연구
2007 .09
-
영미 체포‧구속제도의 특징과 그 비교법적 함의
비교형사법연구
2009 .01
-
피의자 인신구속제도의 정비방안
형사법연구
2003 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-360-003240155