ISSN : 2093-3843
Self-defense reflects the function of law in situation where the elements of a crime are satisfied, but the legality is denied. While the Criminal Procedure Law in South Korea and Japan aims at securing social order and guaranteeing individual rights, Amendments in the United State focus on ensuring individual rights and freedom. The couple of functions and purposes of the law would be differently influenced as the legal culture to the lay people's judgment of self-defense. 202 Korean, 64 Japanese and 190 American college students participated. As a result, the proportion of accepting self-defense by the Americans was significantly higher than the Koreans and Japanese, and there was no difference between Koreans and Japanese. It was suggested that legal culture exerts influence on the judgment of the self-defense.
김혜경 (2014). 실체적 진실발견 은 형사소송법의 목적인가?. 형사법연구, 26, 161-192.
법무부 (2007). 일본형법.
성유리 (2012). 일반인읮 ㅓㅇ당방위판단에 대한 법적 지침의 효과. 석사학위논문, 충북대학교 대학원
성유리, 박광배. (2012). 일반인의 정당방위 판단: 개인/집단주의 가치관의 효과. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 26(3), 1-12.
성유리, 김종한, Meyersburg, 박광배 (2013). 일반인의 정당방위 판단에 대한 법문화의 영향. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 27(2), 69-83.
손해목 (1996). 형법총론. 법문사.
이상돈, 홍승희 (2010). 형법의 세계화와 전문화. 박영사.
이용식 (1995). 정당방위와 긴급피난의 몇 가지 요건. 형사판례연구, 3, 89.
최석윤 (2001). 정당방위의 성립요건. 비교형사법연구, 3(1), 381-406.
최종고 (1980). 법사와 법사상. 박영사.
Baron, M. (2005). Justifications and excuses. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 2, 387-406.
Brody, D. C., & Acker, J. R. (2014). Criminal Law. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Choi, I., Nisbett, R. E., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). Causal attribution across cultures: variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 47-63.
Chu, Y., Diamond, L., Nathan, A. J., & Shin, D. C. (2008). Introduction: A comparative perspectives on democratic legitimacy in East Asia. In Y. Chu, L. Diamond, A. J. Nathan, & D. C. Shin (Eds.), How East Asians View Democracy. New York: Columbia University Press.
Devine, D. J. (2012). Jury decision making. New York University Press.
Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1977). Juridic decisions: In ignorance of the law or in light of it?. Law and Human Behavior, 1(2), 163.
Finkel, N. J. (2000). But it's not fair!Commonsense notions of unfairness. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(4), 898-952.
Finkel, N. J. (2001). Commonsense justice: Jurors'notions of the law. Harvard University Press.
Finkel, N. J., & Groscup, J. L. (1997). Crime prototypes, objective versus subjective culpability, and a commonsense balance. Law and Human Behavior, 21(2), 209-230.
ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I. A., & Bourgeois, M. J. (1993). Juror competence in civil trials: Ef ects of preinstruction and evidence technicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 14.
Gilbert, D. T., & Jones, E. E. (1986). Perceiver-induced constraint: Interpretations of self-generated reality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 269-280.
Goldberg, J. C. (1981). Memory, Magic, and Myth: The Timing of Jury Instructions. Oregon Law Review, 59(4), 451-454.
Greenewald, J. P., Tomkins, A. J., Kenning, M. K., & Zavodny, D. (1990). Psychological self-defense jury instruction: Influence on verdicts for battered woman defendants. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 8, 171-180.
Grumer, J. (2004). IX. Self-Defense. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 36, 1575-1595.
Hung, Y., Chiu, C., & Kung, T. M. (1997). Bringing culture out in front: Effects of cultural meaning system activation on social cognition. In K. Leung, Y. Kashima, U. Kim, & S. Yamaguchi (Eds.), Progres in Asian social psychology (Vol. 1, pp.135-146). Singapore:Wiley.
Ji, L., Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Culture, Control, and Perception of Relationships in the Environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 943-955.
Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1979). On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1877.
Katz, L. (1987). Bad acts and guilty minds:Conundrums of the criminal law. University of Chicago Press.
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 992-1004.
Nelken, D. (2004). Using the concept of legal culture. Australian Journal of Legal philosophy, 29(1), 1-26.
Malone, L. A. (2009). Is there really a dif erence between justification and excuse, or did we academics make it up? Texas Tech Law Review, 42, 321-325.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991a). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991b). Culture variation in the self-concept. In J. Strauss &G. R. Goethals(Eds.), The self: Interdisciplinary approaches. New York: Spring-Verlag.
Masuda, T., & Kitayama, S. (2004). Perceiver-induced constraint and attitude attribution in Japan and the US: A case for the cultural dependence of the correspondence bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 409-416.
Morris, M. W. (1993). Culture and case: American and Chinese understandings of physical and social causality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
Morris, M. W., Nisbett, R. E., & Peng, K. (1995). Causal understanding across domains and cultures. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, &AJ Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate (pp.577-612). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 67, 949-971.
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1991). A Cognitive Theory of Juror Decision Making: The Story Model. Cardozo Law Review, 13, 519-557
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189-206.
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). The story model for juror decision making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making (pp. 192-221). New York:Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. H., & Darley, J. M. (1996). Utility of desert. Northwestern University Law Review, 91, 453.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in experimental social psychology, 10, 174-228.
Rutherford, S. (2000). Lex, Rex, or the law and the prince. Portage Publications.
Simon, D. (2004). A third view of the black box:Cognitive coherence in legal decision making. The University of Chicago Law Review, 511-586.
Snyder, M., & Jones, E. E. (1974). Attitude attribution when behavior is constrained. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 585-600.
Smith, V. L. (1991a). Impact of pretrial instruction on jurors' information processing and decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 220-228.
Smith, V. L. (1991b). Prototypes in the courtroom:Lay representations of legal concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 857-872.
Vidmar, N. (1997). Generic prejudice and the presumption of guilt in sex abuse trials. Law and Human Behavior, 21(1), 5-25.
Vidmar, N. (2002). Case studies of pre-and midtrial prejudice in criminal and civil litigation. Law and Human Behavior, 26(1), 73-105.
Vidmar, N. (2003). When All of Us Are Victims:Juror Prejudice and Terrorist Trials. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 78, 1143-1178.
Wilson, T., Centerbar, D., & Brekke, N. (2002)Mental contamination and the debiasing problem. In T. Gilovich, D. Grif in, D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Zebrowitz, L. A. (1990). Social perception. Pacific G rove, CA: Brooks/Cole.