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
The purpose of this article is to make a scrutiny into the constitutionality of the registration system and the notification system of the convicted sex offender in Korea. Korea has had not only the registration of the convicted sex offender, but also the public notification on the internet and the community notification per post of the convicted sex offender by the revision of the Act on The Protection of Children and Juvenile from Sexual Abuse(APCJSA) and establishment of Act on The Punishment of Sexual Crimes(APSC) in the year 2009 and 2010.
I believe, that the convicted sex offender registration system, that the court sentences the sex offender to provide his personal information for the Minister of Women and Family Affairs or the Minister of Justice, ist not unconstitutional. Because the convicted sex offender registration system is to keep watch on the sex offender's movement with ease, in order to prevent sexual offences and registration of personal information of the sex offender is not an excessive means for this purpose.
But I think, that the convicted sex offender public notification on the internet and the convicted sex offender community notification per post ist not constitutional. The government discloses the registered personal information of the sex offender throughout the country on the internet and this information is to be accessible through the internet to the public, and what was worse, the government provides the neighbors of the sex offender with his registered personal information, including the detailed address and photo, is an excessive means for the purpose of preventing the sexual offences. And I believe, the public notification system and the community notification system in force have the penal nature, shaming punishments, so both the Acts violate the constitutional prohibition on the Double Jeopardy Clause. Besides I believe, Article 3 Paragraph (2) and (4) of supplementary provision of the APCJSA violates the constitutional prohibition on Ex Post Facto Clause.
The approaches to the sex offence must be constitutional. We must be alert to the penal populsim.
I believe, that the convicted sex offender registration system, that the court sentences the sex offender to provide his personal information for the Minister of Women and Family Affairs or the Minister of Justice, ist not unconstitutional. Because the convicted sex offender registration system is to keep watch on the sex offender's movement with ease, in order to prevent sexual offences and registration of personal information of the sex offender is not an excessive means for this purpose.
But I think, that the convicted sex offender public notification on the internet and the convicted sex offender community notification per post ist not constitutional. The government discloses the registered personal information of the sex offender throughout the country on the internet and this information is to be accessible through the internet to the public, and what was worse, the government provides the neighbors of the sex offender with his registered personal information, including the detailed address and photo, is an excessive means for the purpose of preventing the sexual offences. And I believe, the public notification system and the community notification system in force have the penal nature, shaming punishments, so both the Acts violate the constitutional prohibition on the Double Jeopardy Clause. Besides I believe, Article 3 Paragraph (2) and (4) of supplementary provision of the APCJSA violates the constitutional prohibition on Ex Post Facto Clause.
The approaches to the sex offence must be constitutional. We must be alert to the penal populsim.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 신상공개제도의 변화과정
Ⅲ. 현행 성범죄자신상공개제도의 내용과 논의방향
Ⅳ. 현행 신상등록제도에 대한 헌법적 검토
Ⅴ. 현행 신상공개제도에 대한 헌법적 검토
Ⅵ. 결론
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (4)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (3)
-
헌법재판소 1994. 6. 30. 선고 92헌바38 전원재판부〔합헌〕
가. 헌법 제13조 제1항이 정한“이중처벌금지(二重處罰禁止)의 원칙(原則)”은 동일한 범죄행위에 대하여 국가가 형벌권(刑罰權)을 거듭 행사할 수 없도록 함으로써 국민의 기본권 특히 신체의 자유를 보장하기 위한 것이므로, 그 “처벌(處罰)”은 원칙으로 범죄에 대한 국가의 형벌권 실행으로서의 과벌(課罰)을 의미하는 것이고, 국가가 행하
자세히 보기 -
헌법재판소 1999. 7. 22. 선고 97헌바76,98헌바50·51·52·54·55(병합) 전원재판부
가. 헌법재판소법 제68조 제2항에 의한 헌법소원은 법률의 위헌여부심판의 제청신청을 하여 그 신청이 기각된 때에만 청구할 수 있는 것이다. 그런데 청구인 홍성민 등은 …… 구 공유수면매립법 제6조 제2호에 대하여는 위헌여부심판의 제청신청을 한 바 없고, 이에 따라 이 부분에 대하여는 법원의 위헌제청신청기각결정도 없었다. 따라서 위 법률조항에
자세히 보기 -
헌법재판소 2002. 7. 18. 선고 2000헌바57 전원재판부
가. 공무원연금법 제64조 제3항에 의한 급여의 제한사유인 범죄행위를 공무원으로 재직하던 중에 범한 죄로 한정하여 보는 한, 연금제도와 같은 사회보장 분야에 관한 입법에 있어 입법자가 광범위한 입법형성권을 갖는 점에 비추어 볼 때 이 사건 법률조항이 사유재산권을 보장한 헌법규정에 위반하여 퇴직급여청구권의
자세히 보기
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-000427870