open access
메뉴
open access
메뉴
본 연구에서는 검사의 공소사실에 제시된 피고인의 유죄증거가 유일한 재판에서 피고인에 대한 일반인들의 유무죄 판단이 유일한 증거의 종류와 추가증거의 유무 및 순환논증오류의 인식 여부에 따라 달라지는지를 확인하고, 일반인들이 판단한 유일한 증거의 사후확률과 실제 통계자료에 의해 계산된 베이지안 사후확률을 비교하였다. 또한 유일한 증거만 제시된 재판에서의 유무죄 판단이 순환논증오류의 인식 여부 및 인과추론 경향성, 유일한 증거에 대한 증명력 평가의 영향을 받을 것으로 보고, 이들의 관계를 경로모형을 통하여 검증하였다. 연구 결과, 실험조건에 따라 유죄판단 비율이 달랐으며, 모든 실험조건에서 순환논증오류를 인식하고 있는 일반인들은 인식하지 못하는 일반인들보다 무죄판단을 더 많이 하는 것으로 나타났다. 유일한 증거만 제시된 조건들을 선택하여 참가자들이 직접 판단한 유일한 증거의 사후확률과 베이지안 사후확률을 비교한 결과, 일반인들은 유일한 증거의 사후확률을 과대추정하는 경향이 있었다. 경로모형을 분석한 결과에서는 유일한 증거가 자백인 조건에서만, 순환논증오류의 인식여부가 유무죄 판단에 직접적인 영향을 주고 과대추정된 유일한 증거의 사후확률이 유일한 증거의 증명력 평가를 통하여 피고인에 대한 유무죄 판단에 간접적인 영향을 주는 것으로 나타났다. 논의에서는 유일한 증거만 제시되는 재판에 내재된 위험성과 그 대처방안에 대해 논의하였다.
The present study examined whether and how lay people’s verdict would vary as a function of the presence or absence of additional evidence to corroborate a sole evidence. Also, the perceived posterior probabilities of the sole evidence were compared with the Bayesian posterior probabilities. Finally, path models to identify the relationships among legal judgement, probative value of the sole evidence, posterior probability, and recognition of circularity of inference, were tested. In the results, highest rate of guilty verdict was observed in the sole confession evidence condition. The participants being aware of the logical circularity were more likely to make an acquittal decision than those without the awareness, in all experimental conditions. In the sole evidence conditions, the participants overestimated the perceived posterior probabilities of the sole evidence. According to the results of the path model in the sole confession evidence condition, it appeared that the awareness of circular logic had a direct effect on the verdict and the perceived posterior probability of the sole evidence had an indirect effect through the perceived probative value of the evidence on the verdict. We discussed about the risks embedded in trial with sole evidence and proposed a counterplan.
김정한 (2015). 증거능력 제한 규정으로 재해석한 형사소송법 제 310 조의 의미와 적용범위. 법학연구, 23(1), 97-121.
대검찰청 (2016). 2016 범죄분석. http://www.spo.go.kr/spo/info/stats/stats02.jsp에서 2017. 4. 18 자료얻음.
대법원 (1990). 90도741.
대법원 (2006). 2005도8704.
대법원 (2008). 2008도2343.
한유화, 박광배 (2016). 유일한 증거와 일반인의 법적 판단. 한국심리학회지: 법정, 7(1). 1-14.
Buchanan, R. W., Pryor, B., Taylor, K. P., & Strawn, D. U. (1978). Legal communication:An investigation of juror comprehension of pattern instructions. Communication Quarterly, 26(4), 31-35.
Charrow, R. P., & Charrow, V. R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia law review, 79(7), 1306-1374.
Drizin, S. A., & Leo, R. A. (2003). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North Carolina Law Review, 82(3), 891-1008.
Eells, E. (1991). Probabilistic Causality. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1982). Making jury instructions understandable. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.
Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychological review, 103(4), 650-669.
Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2000). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, 777-830.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., Mullen, M. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological review, 94(2), 211-228.
Kramer, G., & Koening, D. (1990). Do jurors understand criminal jury instructions? Analyzing the results of the Michigan juror comprehension project. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 23, 401-437.
Lieberman, J. D., & Arndt, J. (2000). Understanding the limits of limiting instructions: Social psychological explanations for the failures of instructions to disregard pretrial publicity and other inadmissible evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(3), 677-711.
Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2000). Discrimination and instructional comprehension: Guided discretion, racial bias, and the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior, 24(3), 337-358.
National Registry of Exonerations (2012). Exonerations in the United States, 1989-2012. http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/exonerations_us_1989_2012_full_report.pdf에서 2017. 4. 18 자료얻음.
Reifman, A., Gusick, S. M., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1992). Real jurors' understanding of the law in real cases. Law and Human Behavior, 16(5), 539-554.
Saxton, B. (1998). How Well Do Jurors Understand Jury Instructions-A Field Test Using Real Juries and Real Trials in Wyoming. Land & Water Law Review, 33(1), 59.
Schum, D. A. (2002). Species of abductive reasoning in fact investigation in law. In MacCrimmon, M & Tillers, P. (Eds). The Dynamics of Judicial Proof. Physica-Verlag HD.
Skyrms, B. (1980). Causal Necessity: A Pragmatic Investigation of the Necesscity of Laws. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Studebaker, C. A., & Penrod, S. D. (2005). Pretrial publicity and its influence on juror decision making. In Brewer, N., & Williams, K. D. Psychology and Law: An Empirical Perspective. New York: Guilford.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1980). Causal schemas in judgments under uncertainty. In Fishbein, M. (Ed.). Progress in social psychology. New York: Psychology Press.
