메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국비교형사법학회 비교형사법연구 비교형사법연구 제11권 제2호
발행연도
2009.1
수록면
81 - 103 (23page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Recently great attention has been shown to the question of sentencing guidelines. an unfair sentencing deviation and a paternalistic judicial decision raised a discussion about sentencing guidelines. Under the Supreme Court, the Sentencing Commission was established on May 2, 2007 with a purpose to implement fair and objective sentencing practices, which the public can respect and trust. The Commission, which is independent of its role, is provided with the authority to establish or revise the sentencing guidelines and may conduct research and deliberate sentencing policy. In 2009 Sentencing Committee established guidelines of 8 crimes which are homicide, sex, bribe, robbery etc. The sentencing guidelines may not be legally binding but must be respected by the judges in rendering decisions as which to the category and period of sentencing should be involved. This paper examines the problem of Sentencing Guidelines, particularly of the improvement direction of Sentencing Guidelines and an examination of Its rationality. Before going on with the question of an examination of Its rationality, it should be mentioned that the contents of a Sentencing Guidelines. Sentencing is consistent when offenders committing similar offences are punished with similar penalties by different sentencers, whether those sentencers sit in the same court or different courts. That is not to say that there is a right sentence for every offence. Treating like cases alike does not mean treating them in exactly the same way. Sentencing is neither a scientific nor a mechanistic process. A large number of different circumstances can legitimately be taken into account by sentencers. It is insufficient to slove the Sentencing Guidelines gap due to the broad sentence range problems and there are no mandatory effect in the Sentencing Guidelines. When establish the sentencing guidelines, the limited normatives are so vague thus It’s problems should be solved through an additory study.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (42)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0