형사사법 민영화에 관한 정치 이념적 고찰

초록

The rapid growth of private security has been stirring up controversy over the privatization of criminal justice. For privatization of criminal justice is much different from that of social welfare and transportation. Privatization of criminal justice must be related to the essence and role of the state, based on the fact that a modern state presupposes the monopoly of coercion. The extent of privatization of criminal justice, thus, depends upon political ideology. There have been, however, few researches on the privatization of criminal justice from the perspective of political ideology. Privatization of criminal justice appears to be sugar-coated, being different from that of other areas. Private security companies, private investigation and private prison, which are usually presented as the examples of privatization of criminal justice, only show 'pseudoprivatization' or 'partial privatization' other than 'complete privatization.' The concession and transfer of coercion is a grave problem upon which the destiny of the state depends. This because the state should not abandon its exclusive right over coercive power or transfer it to the market. Even though private security seems to have been widespread and touched almost all part of criminal justice, it has not infiltrated into the essence of the state, the coercive power. The complete privatization of criminal justice requires the private security companies to substitute the organization and role of criminal justice. However, the state must not permit them to do so. The privatization of criminal justice cannot be, in this sense, properly understood without considering political ideology.

키워드