원문 내용 공개(PDF 파일 등)는 민주법학 통권 제38호 발간 후에 이루어집니다.
민주법학 통권 제37호는 온라인서점 등에서 구입하실 수 있습니다.
민주법학 통권 제36호까지의 원문 내용은 본 자료실에서 확인하실 수 있습니다.

<국문초록>

현 정부의 법질서 강화정책은 정부기관과 지방자치단체, 정당과 언론을 통해 조직적으로 표출되고 있다. 1970년대 이후 미국과 영국을 비롯한 서유럽에서 법질서정치를 통해 형사사법체계가 비합리적으로 왜곡된 경험을 비교성찰해 볼 필요가 있다. 법질서회복이라는 정치적 표어를 내세워 행정부-정당-언론의 법질서정치 연합이 등장할 때 형사사법의 정치화를 경계해야 한다.

법질서정치는 본질적으로 위기를 과장하고 오용하는 정책, 반동후퇴적 정책, 시장을 우선하는 정책, 범죄에 대한 두려움을 악용하는 정책, 정치적 상징성을 추구하는 정책, 복잡다단한 범죄현실을 지나치게 단순화하는 정책, 배척의 정책을 통해 형사사법을 왜곡한다. 범죄로부터 위기를 과장하고 이를 기회로 국가권력을 남용한다. 보수적 가치를 호소하면서 시장과 기업을 우선시한다. 시민의 범죄에 대한 두려움을 이용하여 형사사법기관을 확대하는 기회로 삼고, 실제효과보다는 정치적 상징효과를 노린다. 복잡다단한 사회현실로부터 비롯된 범죄현실에 신중하고 세밀한 정책을 제시하기보다는 사태를 단순화하고 근시안적인 대책에 쉽게 의지한다. 새 정부는 경제위기와 사회질서의 혼란을 과장하고 이를 구실로 과거 강제력에 의존한 사회문제해결방식에로 후퇴하지 않도록 경계해야 한다. 법질서정치의 형사사법과 형사정책에 대한 영향은 장기적이고 회복이 어렵다.

법질서의 유지는 국가가 당연히 책임져야 할 임무다. 하지만 어떠한 법질서를 어떻게 지키고 회복해야 하는지는 민주주의의 내용과 절차의 문제다. 법질서가 정치적 구호로 등장하면서, 형사법과 형사사법기관을 동원하게 된다면 법질서의 이름으로 민주주의질서를 훼손하는 결과에 이른다. 법과 인권이 대립하는 상황은 형사사법체계의 위기다. 법질서정치의 본질을 비판하고, 형사사법의 왜곡을 바로잡아야 한다.

법질서연합에 맞선 인권연합은 비판적 법연구자-인권시민단체-대안언론으로 이루어진다. 법연구자들은 법질서정치의 허상을 벗기고, 범죄와 형사사법의 진실을 드러내는 비판적 역할을 해야 한다. 이러한 비판작업은 시민단체와 대안언론의 통로를 통해 주류언론과 국가기관들의 제동을 걸고, 민주주의와 인권의 원칙을 존중하는 법질서의 회복을 위한 대안을 제시해야 한다.

주제어: 법질서정치, 형사사법의 정치화, 형사사법체계의 위기, 인권연합

<Abstract>

‘Law and Order’ Politics and the Crisis of Criminal Justice Policy

Kim, Han-Kyun

Researcher, Korean Institute of Criminology

When the government - mass media - political party coalition campaigns for ‘Law and Order’, criminal justice becomes a political issue. Criminal justice gets tough on crime, which actually means tough on criminals. With the highest wave of incarceration, punitive discourse and subsequent penal policies increasingly surround the issues of crime and punishment.

The development of Law and Order movement can be traced to a growing crisis of political legitimacy in the USA in the 1960s. From the 1980s, the politics of Law and Order could be observed in most Western European countries. England has also drifted into a Law and Order society, which has its roots in the structural recession of economy, and social climate that prefers severe punishment as a remedy for crime.

The politics of Law and Order has been shaped by the responses to the continuous rise in crime rates and to political unrest of the time. Local governments, interest groups in the criminal justice field and the mass media are the key players in such politics.

Firstly, Law and Order is, by nature, the politics of crisis. Political and economical crisis of the moment demands responses by government and parts of its reactions would be incorporated into harsh criminal policies. The period of penal expansionism tends to reflect legitimacy crisis in government.

Secondly, Law and Order is the politics of the conservative. The ideology of Law and Order is a complex set of attitudes, including ideas that individuals have free will against social conditions and that they should be harshly punished if they break the rules or fail to respect authority of the society. Under the influence of Law and Order politics, a false parallelism was invented. Rational and humanitarian treatment on criminal offenders seems soft on crime, and thus appears incompetent on crimes and criminals. On the contrary, harsh punishment seems tough, and thus would appear effective and competent on the problems of crime. When such political rhetoric of ‘softness’ or ‘toughness’ prevails over criminal justice, a rational and thoughtful policy-making cannot be expected.

Thirdly, Law and Order is the politics of marketization. It argues that the State should intervene only in the area of law and order; the maintenance of public order and the policing of crime are prerequisites for proper functioning of the market. This also led to a revival of classical theory of criminal responsibility, which echoed the individualism of the market.

Fourthly, Law and Order is the politics of fear. It appeals to fear of crime and for much stricter penal policies treating criminals with exemplary severity. The public greatly overestimates the prevalence of violent crimes, and underestimates actual sentence levels imposed by the courts.

Fifthly, Law and Order is the politics of symbol. Criminal justice policies under the flag of Law and Order rhetoric chiefly serve symbolic rather than substantive ends. Therefore, empirical proof of their disappointing impact on crime rate cannot dissuade politicians from preoccupation with harsh punishment. In terms of long-term effect, such makeshifts tend to lose people’s trust in the criminal justice system.

Sixthly, Law and Order is the politics of over-simplification. Diverse political, economic and social situations, which must be considered in formulating criminal justice policy, are just simplified as crime and disorder. The social realities of crimes are blanketed under political rhetoric.

Lastly, Law and Order is the politics of exclusion. It exploits public resentment of crimes and criminals. When such stance is coupled with exclusive postures against ethnic minorities, asylum-seekers, foreign labourers, Law and Order takes an instrumental role of gathering political support.

Law and Order politics, from the experiences of US and UK, is far from the effectiveness and legitimacy of criminal justice policy. It is necessary to demystify the idea of Law and Order as much as possible and to make an effort toward disclosing the reality of crime control to the public in order to tackle the crucial influence of Law and Order on criminal justice reform.

The incumbent president puts its priorities in the restoration of law and order. South Korea may see the advent of Law and Order coalition, which pushes forward anti-human rights and pro-market criminal justice policies. This may bring a long-term crisis in the legislation and practice of criminal justice system.

Against such coalition, critical lawyers, progressive media, and NGOs should form a human rights coalition. Against the influence of Law and Order politics, human rights principle should serve as practical guidance in the reform of criminal laws and criminal justice system.

Key Words: Law and Order politics, politicization of criminal justice, crisis of criminal justice system, human rights coalition