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.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The criminal justice system of Korea made a turning point at the end of the 1980s. The introduction of probation and parole systems in 1989, although both systems were limited their applications only to juveniles, was an historical event. the criminal justice system of Korea made a turning point at the end of the e penal policy of Korea, which had laid stress upon imprisonment for the offenders, became to use the community-based treatment or punishment for the offenders. With a favourable opinion about the effectiveness of probation service in preventing recidivism for juveniles, the government expanded its application to all adults in 1997. This seemed that the probation service would move centre stage of the criminal justice in Korea with the increase of probation officers commensurating with the great increase of probationers from 20,358 in 1990 to 132,639 in 1999. However, the keen desire collapsed by the government policy of pursuing the small government and the lack of public support. The serious shortage and heavy caseload led to superficial law enforcement, which made it difficult to prevent reoffending of offenders and to reintegrate them into society. Many other problems derived from the serious shortage of probation staff, such as inappropriate use of volunteers, the lack of empirical research results about the effectiveness of probation service, the lack of professionalism on probation officer, and so on.
Under these circumstances, the probation service of the U.K., which has a long history over 100 years and the biggest size of workforce in the world, will be a good model for the Korean probation service. Especially, the affluent research results, which are based on empirical study about the effectiveness of probation service and its application to probation service, will be a good guideline for the development of Korean probation service.
When one compares the system of each country, it is important to understand the cultural background, social circumstance, and political and economical surroundings in order to understand it correctly. Although probation round the world has its origins in two distinct traditions, common and statute law, the contours of the relation between the traditions reveal an increasing convergence between them, but increasing diversification within them(Harris, R., 1995, p.25).
Thus, it is true that the law system between the U.K. and Korea is basically different in many respects, but it is not an important factor for the development of the Korean probation service. The important thing is how probation service operates its system to attain the main goal of probation service. Thus, the contents of the U.K. probation service will be a good guideline for the Korean probation service, which is still on the initial stage of institution.
Under these circumstances, the probation service of the U.K., which has a long history over 100 years and the biggest size of workforce in the world, will be a good model for the Korean probation service. Especially, the affluent research results, which are based on empirical study about the effectiveness of probation service and its application to probation service, will be a good guideline for the development of Korean probation service.
When one compares the system of each country, it is important to understand the cultural background, social circumstance, and political and economical surroundings in order to understand it correctly. Although probation round the world has its origins in two distinct traditions, common and statute law, the contours of the relation between the traditions reveal an increasing convergence between them, but increasing diversification within them(Harris, R., 1995, p.25).
Thus, it is true that the law system between the U.K. and Korea is basically different in many respects, but it is not an important factor for the development of the Korean probation service. The important thing is how probation service operates its system to attain the main goal of probation service. Thus, the contents of the U.K. probation service will be a good guideline for the Korean probation service, which is still on the initial stage of institution.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 영국과 한국의 보호관찰역사 개관
Ⅲ. 한국보호관찰의 현황과 문제점
Ⅳ. 영국과 한국의 보호관찰 정책방향과 조직관리
Ⅴ. 영국과 한국의 보호관찰의 내용
Ⅵ. 가석방자를 위한 보호관찰
Ⅶ. 한국보호관찰제도의 발전을 위한 제언
참고문헌
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
보호관찰공무원의 스트레스 유발원인과 수준에 관한 연구
교정연구
2005 .01
-
보호관찰제도의 정비방안에 관한 일고찰
형사정책연구
2005 .06
-
우리나라 保護觀察制度의 實施現況과 그 改善方案
교정연구
2003 .01
-
보호관찰제도의 강성적 변화에 따른 운용형태에 관한 연구
한양법학
2016 .11
-
보호관찰 활성화 방안에 관한 연구-조직, 인사, 유관기관과의 협조 중심으로-
교정연구
2004 .01
-
현행 보호관찰제도의 문제점과 개선방안
원광법학
2009 .01
-
보호관찰제도의 시행현황과 활성화 방안
교정연구
2005 .01
-
보호관찰제도의 운영과 과제
교정연구
2007 .01
-
현행 형법상 일부집행유예의 가능성과 필요성
강원법학
2006 .12
-
집행유예기간 중의 재범에 대한 집행유예 선고가능성
강원법학
2006 .06
-
保護觀察의 理念과 모델에 관한 硏究
형사정책연구
1997 .09
-
주요 국가의 소년보호관찰제도 연구 : 미국, 영국, 일본의 소년보호관찰제도를 중심으로
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2004 .12
-
사회 내 보안처분으로서 보호관찰의실효성 제고방안- 보호관찰 특별준수사항을 중심으로 -
고려법학
2020 .01
-
미국에서의 Probation과 Parole에 관한 소고
형사정책연구
1991 .09
-
保護觀察 施行 10年의 回顧
형사정책연구
1999 .12
-
동시재판의 가능성과 집행유예기간 중의 집행유예의 선고
비교형사법연구
2004 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2012-364-003958656