open access
메뉴
open access
메뉴
ISSN : 2093-3843
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.