교정시설의 규모에 비해 수용인원의 증가폭이 훨씬 크게 나타나면서 과밀수용이 더 심각하게 되어 수형자의 인권문제가 대두되고 있다. 그런데 교정시설 과밀화현상의 원인은 법률의 중형화 경향과 양형기준제 시행에 따른 형의 중형선고, 그리고 교정시설 부족 등에 있을 것이다. 과밀화수용을 해소하는 가장 쉬운 방법은 교정시설을 확충일 수 있지만, 형사사법체계를 유지할 수 있는 자원은 한계가 있을 수밖에 없으며, 특히 국민의 수형자에 대한 인식과 사법체계 전체에서 행형이 차지하는 현실적인 위치를 고려할 때 현재로서는 이러한 대대적인 물적·인적 확충을 기대하기 어려운 실정이다. 이러한 과밀수용 해소방안으로는 예방과 응보로서의 형집행을 통한 국민적 법감정에 부합하면서도 교화와 사회복귀라는 교정목적 달성에도 부합하는 올바른 가석방제도의 활용을 논의할 수 있다. 첫째, 가석방 신청단계에서 가석방의 현실적 요건완화가 필요할 것이고, 석방 심사를 받기 위한 신청권을 교도소장에게만 줄 것이 아니라 수형자 본인에게도 부여할 필요가 있을 것이다. 둘째, 가석방 심사단계에서 가석방심사의 공정성과 실질적인 평가를 위하여 수형생활과 관련된 자들의 참여를 통한 다양한 심사가 필요하다. 끝으로 가석방 허가단계에서 가석방제도의 취지와 과밀수용 해결 및 범죄예방측면 등을 고려하면 좀 더 다양한 조건을 세분화하여 가석방 조건의 척도로 삼을 필요가 있다. 그리고 가석방을 활성화시키기 위한 보완하는 방법으로 재택구금을 통한 전자감독이 좋은 방안이라 생각된다. 재택구금이라는 방법은 시설내처우로서 형벌을 사회내처우로서 형벌로 변형된 것이므로 그에 따라 사법 판단이 필요할 것이고 법률에 따른 적법절차를 따라야 할 것이다. 이러한 내용은 법률에 구체적으로 명시할 필요가 있다. 이와 같은 가석방 제도는 국가형사사법의 이념과 목적의 실현이라는 전제 하에서 통일된 정책으로 지속적으로 이루어져야 할 것이다.
Prisoners’ human right is emerging as a social issue as the number of prisoner grows far more sharply than the expansion of correction facilities, worsening a problem of over-crowdedness. Causes of over-crowdedness at correction facilities include a growing inclination of law toward heavy punishment, sentencing of increasingly heavier punishment with the implementation of the standard assessment of criminal offenses, and the lack of correction facilities. The easiest solution to mitigating this over-crowdedness would be to build more correction facilities, but resources assigned to uphold the criminal justice system are inevitably limited; particularly, it is hard to secure sufficient resources―both human resources and materials―considering the public perception of prisoners and the meager status of criminal administration within the justice system. Under this circumstance, a proper management of parole system could be discussed as a viable option, as it agrees with the public’s sentiment toward law, which sees execution of sentence as a measure of punishment and crime prevention, and a parole system also serves the purpose of reform and prisoners’ return to society. To promote parole system, first, it is necessary to ease requirements for granting a parole in the application stage, and the right to request review of a possible release needs to be granted to prisoners as well, not only to the head of prison. Second, during the review stage, comprehensive review needs to be done with participation of various personnel involved in prison life to ensure effective and fair review for granting a parole. Lastly, during the approval stage, detailed criteria in granting a parole may be established in consideration of the purpose of a parole system to alleviate over-crowdedness at prisons and prevent crimes. Remote supervision with a released prisoner at home could be a viable way of supplementing the parole system. Confinement at home changes place of punishment from correction facility to within society, and as such, its granting requires judicial judgment and needs to follow due legal process. These need to be expressly stated in law. And the parole system needs to be conducted in a consistent manner under the premise of realizing ideas and goals of the national justice system.
Prisoners’ human right is emerging as a social issue as the number of prisoner grows far more sharply than the expansion of correction facilities, worsening a problem of over-crowdedness. Causes of over-crowdedness at correction facilities include a growing inclination of law toward heavy punishment, sentencing of increasingly heavier punishment with the implementation of the standard assessment of criminal offenses, and the lack of correction facilities. The easiest solution to mitigating this over-crowdedness would be to build more correction facilities, but resources assigned to uphold the criminal justice system are inevitably limited; particularly, it is hard to secure sufficient resources―both human resources and materials―considering the public perception of prisoners and the meager status of criminal administration within the justice system. Under this circumstance, a proper management of parole system could be discussed as a viable option, as it agrees with the public’s sentiment toward law, which sees execution of sentence as a measure of punishment and crime prevention, and a parole system also serves the purpose of reform and prisoners’ return to society. To promote parole system, first, it is necessary to ease requirements for granting a parole in the application stage, and the right to request review of a possible release needs to be granted to prisoners as well, not only to the head of prison. Second, during the review stage, comprehensive review needs to be done with participation of various personnel involved in prison life to ensure effective and fair review for granting a parole. Lastly, during the approval stage, detailed criteria in granting a parole may be established in consideration of the purpose of a parole system to alleviate over-crowdedness at prisons and prevent crimes. Remote supervision with a released prisoner at home could be a viable way of supplementing the parole system. Confinement at home changes place of punishment from correction facility to within society, and as such, its granting requires judicial judgment and needs to follow due legal process. These need to be expressly stated in law. And the parole system needs to be conducted in a consistent manner under the premise of realizing ideas and goals of the national justice system.
