초록 열기/닫기 버튼
이 글의 목적은 심신장애자의 책임능력 문제를, 특히 충동조절장애에 초점을 맞추어 관계적 책임론, 혹은 응답책임론의 입장에서 해명하는 것이다. 심신장애로 인한 책임능력의 결여 문제에 나타난 여러 가지 이론적인 난맥상은 책임의 본질에 대한 관계적 책임론 혹은 응답책임론의 관점에 입각할 때 상당 부분 극복할 수 있다는 점을 보이려 했다. 그것은 책임을 비난가능성이나 예방필요성이 아니라, 도덕적 촉구의 가능성, 즉 행위이유를 둘러싼 커뮤니케이션 가능성으로 이해하는 것이다. 또한 이 글에서는 이렇게 이해된 책임능력으로서의 문답능력이 기존의 판례와 통설인 책임능력 요소로서의 사물변별능력 및 행위통제능력과 어떤 실제적 차이를 보이는지 설명하려고 하였다.
In this paper, I reviewed critically the theoretical basis of the judgement of the Supreme Court of Korea regarding the criminal appraisal of insanity, focusing on impulse control disordered offenders. And I tried to elucidate the meaning of responsibility from a new angle. I proposed that we think of responsibility as relational. I meant by it that responsibility existed between the inquisition and response regarding the reasons of the offender’s act. From this new standpoint, I derived the thesis that responsibility capacity should be understood as capacity for responding to, namely communicating with the legal community surrounding the moral reason of offender’s act. The community participated in the communication, aiming at notifying the offender of wrongfulness of his or her act, and urging him or her to turn back from the previous wrongful reasons. Futhermore, I tried to demonstrate how response capacity was different from discrimination-making capacity and conduct control capacity which popular opinion in academic circle regarded as the requisite elements for criminal responsibility capacity.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
insanity, responsibility capacity, impulse control disorder, kleptomania by menstrual disorder, relational responsibility theory, response-responsibility theory, moral urge theory of punishment, discrimination-making capacity, conduct control capacity
