바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

한국심리학회지: 일반

ISSN : 1229-067X

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.31 No.3
Citation Share

한국, 미국, 중국, 노르웨이 판사들의 목격자 증언과 관련된 지식과 인식에 대한 비교연구

A Comparison of judges' Knowledge/Beliefs about Eyewitness Testimony: Korea, China, Norway, and the USA

한국심리학회지: 일반 / Korean Journal of Psychology: General, (P)1229-067X; (E)2734-1127
2012, v.31 no.3, pp.713-740
고민조 (서울대학교)
박주용 (서울대학교)
고민조, & 박주용. (2012). 한국, 미국, 중국, 노르웨이 판사들의 목격자 증언과 관련된 지식과 인식에 대한 비교연구. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 31(3), 713-740.
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수
PDF 다운로드

초록

본 연구는 판사들의 목격자 증언에 관한 지식이 어느 정도인지를 국제간 비교를 통해 알아보고자 수행되었다. 이를 위해 기존에 수행된 170명의 중국 판사, 160명의 미국 판사, 그리고 157명의 노르웨이 판사들을 대상으로 한 것과 동일한 설문을 (Wise & Safer, 2004; Magnussen, Wise, Raja, Safer, Pawlenko & Stridbeck, 2008; Wise, Gong, Safer & Lee, 2010), 58명의 한국 판사들을 대상으로 실시한 후 그 결과를 분석하였다. 설문 분석 결과, 한국 판사들은 14개의 항목 중 5개의 항목에 대해서 80%이상의 정답률을 보였으며, 전체적으로는 58%의 정답률을 보였다. 이는 미국과 중국 판사들 보다 높았지만, 가장 높은 정답률을 보였던 노르웨이 판사들보다는 낮았다. 이 결과는 Magnusse 등의 연구와 Wise 등의 3개국 판사들에 대한 연구 결과와 일관되게, 우리나라의 판사들도 목격자 증언에 미치는 요인에 관한 이해도를 높일 필요성을 보여준다. 목격자 증언에 대한 잘못된 지식으로 인한 판결 오류를 줄이기 위해서는 먼저 판사들을 대상으로 한 체계적인 목격자 증언 교육 프로그램이 개발될 필요가 있다. 이 프로그램의 효과가 확인되면, 그 적용 대상을 재판에 참여하는 또 다른 주체들인 변호사와 검사 그리고 배심원에게 단계적으로 확대하는 것이 바람직해 보인다.

keywords
목격자 증언, 판사, 미국, 중국, 노르웨이, eyewitness testimony, judges, Korean, USA, Norway, Chinese

Abstract

The present study aims at identifying the levels of knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony for Korean judges in comparison to those in three other countries: China, Norway, and the USA. Fifty-eight Korean judges have participated in the survey. Results from the Korean judges were compared to those from judges of the three other countries, obtained from previous studies (Magnusse et al., 2008; Wise et al., 2009). The percentage of correct answers for the Korean judges were lower than Norwegian judges, but higher than those of U.S. judges and Chinese judges. Also, consistnt with previous findings related to three other contries, it was found that the Korean judges also had limited knowledge about eyewitness testimony. Thus, to enhance the level of knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony, there is an urgent need for development and implementation of systematic training programs. After verification of their effectiveness, such programs should be extended to attorneys and prosecutors.

keywords
목격자 증언, 판사, 미국, 중국, 노르웨이, eyewitness testimony, judges, Korean, USA, Norway, Chinese

참고문헌

1.

김지영, 김시업 (2006). 목격자 증언의 정확성 제고방안, 형사정책연구원.

2.

김종길 (2010). 경찰수사에 있어서 범죄용의자 식별의 정확도 향상 방안에 관한 연구, 박사논문, 원광대학교 대학원, 2010.

3.

민영성 (2004). 목격자에 의한 범인식별 절차의 적정하고 신용성 평가를 위한 담보방안, 저스티스, 통권 179, 한국법학원.

4.

박종선 (2007). 목격자 진술에 의한 범인식별의 신용성 평가, 중앙법학, 9. 3,

5.

백승민 (2007), 형사절차에 있어서 범인식별에 관한 연구, 저스티스, 통권, 102, 한국법학원.

6.

이종훈 (2010). 법심리학 관점에서 본 진술증거의 평가방법, 저스티스, 통권, 120, 한국법학원.

7.

조원철 (2009). 실무연구: 목격증인의 범인식별과 라인업, 법조, 58, 1

8.

홍기원, 이보영 (2011). 목격증인의 범인식별 진술의 신빙성: 역사적 함의와 신빙성 제고를 중심으로, 법학연구. 43. 195-216.

9.

Ask, K. & Granhag, P. A. (2005). Motivational sources of confirmation bias in criminal investigations: The need for cognitive closure. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2, 43-63.

10.

Ask, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2007). Motivational bias in criminal investigators’ judgments of witness reliability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 561-591.

11.

Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W. N., & Bradshaw, G. S. (2006). Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges, and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 115-130.

12.

Colwell, L. H. (2005). Cognitive heuristics in the context of legal decision making. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 23, 17-31.

13.

Connors, E., Lundregan, T., Miller, N., & McEwan, T. (1996). Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. Alexandria, VA: National Institute of Justice.

14.

Cutler, B. L. & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identifications: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law, New York: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identifications: Putting context into context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 629-637.

16.

Czopp, A. M., Monteith, M. J., & Mark, A. Y. (2006). Standing up for a change: Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 784-803.

17.

Devenport, J. L., Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1997). Eyewitness identification evidence: Evaluating commonsense evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 338-361.

18.

Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (2004). Appearing truthful generalizes across different deception situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 486-495.

19.

Garrido, E., Masip, J., & Herrero, C. (2004). Police officers’ credibility judgments: Accuracy and estimated ability. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 254-275.

20.

Goldstein, A. G., Chance, J. E. & Schneller, G.. R. (1989). Frequency of eyewitness identification in criminal cases: A survey of prosecutors. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27: 71.

21.

Halverson, A. M., Hallahan, M., Hart, A. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1997). Reducing biasing effects of judges’ nonverbal behavior with simplified jury instruction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 590-598.

22.

Kassin, S. M., Ellsworth, P. C, & Smith, V. L. (1989). The “general acceptance” of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 44, 1089-1098.

23.

Kassin, S. M., Ellsworth, P. C, & Smith, V. L. (2001). The “general acceptance” of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A new survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 56, 405-416.

24.

Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. C., & Savitsky, K. (2003). Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 187-203.

25.

Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M. & Memon, A. (2001). On the ‘general acceptance’ of eyewitness research. A study of experts. American Psychologist, 56: 405-416.

26.

Read, J. D. & Desmarais, S. L. (2009). Lay knowledge of eyewitness issues: A Canadian evaluation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 301 -326.

27.

Lindsay, R. C., Wells, G. L. & Rumpel, C. M. (1981). Can people detect eyewitness- identification accuracy within and across situations?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 79 -89.

28.

Lindsay, R. C., Wells, G. L. and O'Connor, F. J. (1989). Mock-juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses: A replication and extension. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 333- 339.

29.

Magnussen, S., Wise, R. A., Raja, A. Q., Safer, M. A., Pawlenko, N., & Stridbeck, U. (2008). What judges know about eyewitness testimony: A comparison of Norwegian and US judges. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14, 177- 188.

30.

Neal, T. M. S., Chrisiansen, A., Bornstein, B. H. & Rovicheaux, T. R. (2012). The effects of mock juror's belief about eyewitness performance on trial judgements, Psychology, Crime & Law, 18: 1, 49-64.

31.

Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2003). Actual innocence: When justice goes wrong and how to make it right. New York: New American Library.

32.

Schmechel, R. S., O'Toole, T. P., Easterly, C. & Loftus, E. F. 2006. Beyond the ken? Testing jurors’ understanding of eyewitness reliability evidence. Jurimetrics, 46: 177-214.

33.

Smith, A. C., & Green, E. (2005). Conduct and its consequences: Attempts at debiasing jury judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 505- 526.

34.

Steblay, N., Dysart, J. & Fulero, S. (2003). Eyewitness accuracy rates in police showup and lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 523 -540.

35.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Cognitive psychology (3rd edn). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

36.

Sumner-Armstron, C., & Newcombe, P. A. (2007): The education of jury members: Influences on the determinations of child witnesses, Psychology, Crime & Law, 13:3, 229-244.

37.

Wegener, D. T., Kerr, N. L., Fleming, M. A., & Petty, R. E. (2000). Flexible corrections of juror judgments: Implications of jury instructions. Psychology, public policy, and Law, 6, 629-654.

38.

Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546-1557.

39.

Wells, G. L. and Leippe, M. R. (1981). How do triers of fact infer the accuracy of eyewitness identifications? Using memory for peripheral detail can be misleading. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 682-687.

40.

Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M. and Brimacombe, C.A.E. (1998). Eyewitness identifications procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603-647.

41.

Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness Evidence: Improving its Probative Value, Psychological Science in the Public Interest.

42.

Wise, R. A. & Safer, M. A., (2004). “What U.S. judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 427-443.

43.

Wise, R. A. & Safer, M. A., (2009). How to Analyze the Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony in a Criminal Case, Connecticut Law Review.

44.

Wise, R. A., Gong, X., Safer, M. A., & Lee, Y.T. (2010). A comparison of Chinese judges' and US judges' knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony, Psychology, Crime & Law, 16: 8, 695-713.

한국심리학회지: 일반

논문 투고 OA 정책