바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

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

logo

ISSN : 1229-0653

논문 상세

이전
논문 투고

Vol.22 No.4
Citation Share

응보, 일반인 제지, 및 무력화 목적에 따른 처벌 판단 비교

Purpose of Punishment and Punitive Judgment:Impact of Retribution, General Deterrence, and Incapacitation

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2008, v.22 no.4, pp.175-195
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2008.22.4.011
최훈석 (성균관대학교)
박은영 (성균관대학교)
최훈석, & 박은영. (2008). 응보, 일반인 제지, 및 무력화 목적에 따른 처벌 판단 비교. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 22(4), 175-195, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2008.22.4.011
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수
PDF 다운로드

초록

응보(retribution), 일반인 제지(general deterrence), 및 무력화(incapacitation)를 중심으로 처벌의 근본 목적을 탐색하고자 대학생들을 대상으로 세 개의 실험 연구를 수행했다. 실험 1에서는 범죄 사건의 응보 관련 요소와 일반인 제지 관련 요소를 변화시켜 처벌 대상자에 대한 참가자들의 처벌 판단을 비교했다. 실험 결과, 참가자들의 처벌 판단은 범죄 사건의 응보 관련 요소에 따라서 달리 나타났으며, 일반인 제지 관련 요소에 따라서는 달리 나타나지 않았다. 실험 2에서는 범죄 사건의 응보 관련 요소와 무력화 관련 요소들을 변화시켜 참가자들의 처벌 판단을 비교했다. 실험 결과, 참가자들의 처벌 판단은 응보 관련 요소들의 변화뿐만 아니라 무력화 관련 요소들의 변화에 의해서도 영향 받았다. 실험 3에서는 응보와 일반인 제지, 그리고 무력화 관련 요소들을 단일 설계에 모두 포함시켜 실험 1과 2의 결과를 반복검증하였다. 또한 응보 목적에 따른 처벌 판단은 범죄 사건으로부터 판단자가 경험한 도덕적 분개감에 의해서 매개되며, 무력화 목적에 따른 처벌 판단은 범죄 행위자에 대한 범죄 성향 지각과 범죄인으로부터 사회를 보호해야 할 필요성 지각에 의해서 매개됨을 시사하는 결과를 얻었다. 연구 결과의 시사점 및 장래 연구의 방향을 논의하였다.

keywords
Purpose of punishment, Retribution, Utilitarianism, Incapacitation, Punitive judgment, 처벌 목적, 응보, 공리주의, 일반인 제지, 무력화, 처벌 판단

Abstract

Three studies examined how different purposes of punishment affect peoples' punitive judgment. Korean college students assigned an appropriate sentence to a hypothetical perpetrator whose crime was varied with respect to the key components of three punishment purposes：retribution, general deterrence and incapacitation. Study 1 compared retribution and general deterrence purposes and showed that the sentence judgments were highly sensitive to retribution-related factors (magnitude of harm, extenuating circumstances, criminal intent) but were insensitive to factors associated with general deterrence (frequency, detection rate, publicity). Study 2 compared retribution and incapacita- tion purposes and revealed that both the retribution factors and incapacitation-related factors (criminal record, impulsiveness, recidivism) had a significant, but independent impact on sentence judgments. These findings were replicated in Study 3 which included all three punishment purposes in a single experimental design. Mediational analyses revealed that effects of the retribution factors were mediated by moral outrage. They also revealed that effects of the incapacitation factors were mediated by dispositional inference about the perpetrator and the perceived need for protecting the society from the perpetrator. Implications of the findings and directions for future research are discussed.

keywords
Purpose of punishment, Retribution, Utilitarianism, Incapacitation, Punitive judgment, 처벌 목적, 응보, 공리주의, 일반인 제지, 무력화, 처벌 판단

참고문헌

1.

고재홍, (1991) 잘못,책임 및 처벌：처벌 판단에 관한 한 가상적 모형, 한국심리학회지：사회 및 성격

2.

고재홍, (1995) 처벌크기판단에 관여하는 정보들의 통합방식, 한국심리학회지：사회 및 성격

3.

고재홍, (1996) 책임 판단 연구의 개관, 한국심리학회지：사회 및 성격

4.

김일수, (1998) 법치국가와 형법, 세창출판사

5.

김지현, (1992) 법 전문가와 비전문가의 선고 목적 선호와 형량 결정 과정에 미치는 선고 맥락의 효과,

6.

박광배, (2004) 법심리학, 학지사

7.

법원행정처, (1999) 양형실무, 법원행정처

8.

한정환, (1998) 예방목적의 통합형벌이론(상), 사법행정

9.

한정환, (1999) 예방목적의 통합형벌이론(하), 사법행정

10.

Alicke,M.D., (2000) Culpable and the psychology of blame, Psychological Bulletin

11.

Anderson,M.C., (1999) Goal conflict in juror assessments of compensatory and punitive damages, Law and Human Behavior

12.

Austin,W., (1976) Equity and the law：The effect of harmdoer’s suffering in the act on liking and assigned punishment.In L.Berkowitz & E.Walster(Eds.),Advances in experimental social psychology, Academic Press

13.

Baron,R., (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psycho-logical research：Conceptual,strategic,and sta-tistical considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

14.

Carlsmith,K.M., (2006) The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

15.

Carlsmith,K.M., (2002) Why do we punish?:Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

16.

Carroll,J., (1987) Sentencing goals,causal attributions,ideology,and personality, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

17.

Darley,J.M., (2000) Incapacitation and just deserts as motives for punishment, Law and Human Behavior

18.

Ellsworh,P.C., (1994) Hardening of the attitudes：Americans' view on the death penalty, Journal of Social Issues

19.

Ellswoth,P.C., (1998) Psychology and law.In D.T.Gilbert,S.T.Fiske,& G.Lindzey(Eds.),Handbook of social psychology, McGraw-Hill

20.

Ellsworth,P.C., (1983) Public opinion and capital punishment：A close examination of the views of the views of abolitionists and retentionists, Crime and Delinquency

21.

Feather,N.T., (1998) Reactions to penalties for offenses committed by the police and public citizens：Testing a social-cognitive process model of retributive justice, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

22.

Feather,N.T., (1999) Judgments of deservingness：Studies in the psychology of justice and achieve-ment., Personality and Social Psychology Review

23.

Feather,N.T., (2000) Reactions to a motorvehicle accident in relation to mitigating circumstances and gender and moral worth of the driver, Journal of Applied Social Psychology

24.

Feather,N.T., (2002) Reactions to man-datory sentences in relation to the ethnic identity and criminal history of the offender, Law and Human Behavior

25.

Hamilton,V.L., (1980) Social consensus on norms of justice：Should the punishment fit the crime?, American Journal of Sociology

26.

Heider,F., (1958) The psychology of interpersonal relations, Wiley

27.

Hogarth,J., (1971) Sentencing as a human process, University of Toronto Press

28.

Lerner,M.J., (2003) The justice motive：Where social psychologists found it,how they lost it,and why they may not find it again, Personality and Social Psychology Review

29.

Lerner,M.J., (1998) Sober second thought：The effects of accountability,anger,and authoritarianism on attributions of responsibility, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

30.

McFatter,R.M., (1978) Sentencing strategies and justice：Effect of punishment philosophy on sentencing decision, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

31.

McFatter,R.M., (1982) Purpose of punishment：Effects of utilities of criminal sanctions on perceived appropriateness, Journal of Applied Psychology

32.

Nisbett,R.E., (1977) Telling more than we can know：Verbal reports on mental processes, Psychological Review

33.

Reyna,C., (2001) Justice and utility in the classroom：An attributional analysis of the goals of teachers' punishment and intervention strategies, Journal of Educational psychology

34.

Roberts,J.V., (1989) The purposes of sentencing：Public support of competing aims, Behavioral Sciences and the Law

35.

Rosen,B., (1974) Factors influencing disciplinary judgments, Journal of Applied Psychology

36.

Sarat,A., (1976) Public opinion,the death penalty,and the Eighth Amendment：Testing the Marshall hypothesis, Wisconsin Law review

37.

Tangney,J.P., (2004) High self-control predicts good adjust-ment,less pathology,better grades,and interper-sonal success, Journal of Personality

38.

Tetlock,P.E., (1996) Revising the value pluralism model：Incorporating social content and context postulates.In C.Seligman,J.Olson,& M.Zanna(Eds.),Values ：Eighth annual Ontario Symposium on personality and Social Psychology, Erlbaum

39.

Thomas,C., (1977) Public attitudes toward capital punishment：A comparative analysis, Journal of Behavioral Economics

40.

Tindale,R.S., (2000) Procedural mechanisms and jury beha-vior.In M.A.Hogg & R.S.Tindale(Eds.),Blackwell handbook of social psychology：Group procsses, Blackwell Publishers

41.

Vidmar,N., (1974) Retributive and utilitarian motives and other correlates of Canadian attitudes toward the death penalty, Canadian Psychologist

42.

Vidmar,N., (1974) Public opinion and the death penalty, Stanford Law Review

43.

Vidmar,N., (1980) Social psycholo-gical processes underlying attitudes toward legal punishment., Law and Society Review

44.

Walster,E., (1966) Assignment of responsibility for an accident, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

45.

Warr,M., (1983) Norms,theories of punishment,and publicly preferred penalties for crimes, The Sociological Quarterly

46.

Weiner,B., (1995) Judgements of responsibility：A foundation for a theory of social conduct, The Guilford Press

47.

Weiner,B., (1997) An attributional examination of retributive versus utilitarian philosophies of punishment, Social Justice Research

48.

Ziming,F.E., (1995) Incapacitation, Oxford University Press

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책