초록

용어보기논문에서 용어와 풀이말을 자동 추출한 결과로, 시범 서비스 중입니다. AI-Helper

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

It is central to the self-image of us that it is a government of laws not of men. Korea must cleave to this principle in its response to the ongoing provocation of foreigner crimes. As the volume of revelations in statistics on foreigner crime rate has mounted, the frustrations of government have be...

It is central to the self-image of us that it is a government of laws not of men. Korea must cleave to this principle in its response to the ongoing provocation of foreigner crimes. As the volume of revelations in statistics on foreigner crime rate has mounted, the frustrations of government have become evident. In the heat of the moment, irresponsible arguments have urged the government to take extra-legal steps against the foreigner control and policy. Some of reports and essays have already highlighted the relationship between the raising numbers of incoming foreigners and their crime rates. If the large foreign population is alleged to affect inland crime rate increase, law should of course prepare to move. But it is far from clear whether it is reasonable explanation. No doubt, we should allow people to choose where they want to stay and live in. The World Human Rights Declaration enshrined this principle in 1945, convincing a “Cosmopolitanism” preference rather than “Diaspora” Looking at the illegal immigration, some government officials and its back-up researches come up with a tight policy against illegal immigration on the idea to decrease the potential connection with foreign crimes. The government could seek to unearth some archaic legislation, preventing potential crimes to cap and control the foreign population, but it is uncertain that this is fit for the purpose. Furthermore we did not produce reliable study to make a rational decision yet. It is certain that the government should not reach around the commitment to defending an imaginary foreign crime. By subverting the rule of law for this purpose is a very poor bargain. These should be twofold. First we must look at the constitution and decide whether it is adequate for the job of decreasing those risks. If existing legislation needs to be strengthened, it should do so. But we should be placed in right chair. This may not be desirable – or unconstitutional. Finding what we have today exactly rather than simply guessing ones must be the way to go. Second, a policy must become better at maintaining rationality. That means focusing on those that it is really either necessary to control or good to leave it as-is. If you are going to punish illegal immigration more harshly, you should probably apply it to bigger clear harms, with crystal evidence. In any case, promiscuously expanding the realm of the criminal law, which we have currently done is both ineffective and counterproductive.

주제어