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

  • P-ISSN1229-0653
  • KCI

ISSN : 1229-0653

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.25 No.1

Citation Share

CSI 효과: 검사와 일반인의 비교

The CSI Effect: A Comparison between Prosecutors and Lay Persons

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2011, v.25 no.1, pp.25-41
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2011.25.1.002
김민지 (숙명여자대학교)
김민지. (2011). CSI 효과: 검사와 일반인의 비교. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 25(1), 25-41, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2011.25.1.002

Abstract

The present study examined the influence of CSI type programs on general perceptions of forensic evidence and the effects of DNA expert testimony on legal decisions between Korean prosecutors and lay persons. The results indicated that lay persons who watch CSI type programs were more likely to perceive that most forensic science evidence as reliable when compared to prosecutors, but watching CSI type programs had no significant influence on guilty verdict. Presentation of DNA evidence by the prosecution increased the probability of producing guilty verdict but cross-examination and an opposing expert testimony by defense decreased the probability of producing guilty verdict. Implications for use of forensic science evidence in trials are discussed.

keywords
법과학 증거, DNA, 전문가 증언, CSI 효과, 신뢰성, forensic science evidence, DNA, expert testimony, CSI effect

참고문헌

1.

유혁상ㆍ권창국(2004). 주요 선진국의 과학적 수사기법의 도입과 활용방안 연구. 연구총서. 한 국형사정책연구원.

2.

정윤덕 (2007). 공소사실 진실이라는 확신주어야.http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=102&oid=001&aid=0001805650, 2009년 5월 2일.

3.

Bornstein, B. (1999). The ecological validity of jurysimulations: Is the jury still out? Law andHuman Behavior, 23(1), 75-91.

4.

Garrett, B. L. & Neufeld, P. J. (2009). Invalidforensic science testimony and wrongfulconvictions. Virginia Law Review, 95(1), 1-97.

5.

Hans, V. P., & Dee, J. L. (1991). Media coverage oflaw: Its impact on juries and the public.American Behavioral Scientist, 35(2), 136-149.

6.

Hallgrimsdotter, H. K., Phillips, R., & Benoit, C.(2006) Fallen women and rescued girls: Socialstigma and media narratives of the sexindustry in Victoria, B.C., from 1980 to 2005.Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology,43(3), 265-280.

7.

Innocence Project. (2010). [Home page]. RetrievedFebruary 15th, 2010, from http://www.innocenceproject.org/

8.

Kim, Y. S., Barak, G., & Shelton, D. E. (2009).Examining the “CSI-effect” in the cases ofcircumstantial evidence and eyewitnesstestimony: Multivariate and path analyses.Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 452-460.

9.

Koehler, J. J. (2001). When are people persuaded byDNA match statistics? Law and HumanBehavior, 25, 493-513.

10.

Kovera, M. B. (2002). The effects of general pretrialpublicity on juror decisions: An examination ofmoderators and mediating mechanisms. Law andHuman behavior, 26, 43-72.

11.

Kovera, M. B., McAuliff, B. D. (2000). The effects ofpeer review and evidence quality on judgeevaluations of psychological science: Are judgeseffective gatekeepers? Journal of AppliedPsychology, 85(4), 574-586.

12.

Kovera, M. B., McAuliff, B. D., & Herbert, K. S.(1999). Reasoning about scientific evidence:Effects of Juror gender and evidence quality onJuror decisions in a hostile work environmentcase. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3),362-375.

13.

Levett, L., & Kovera, M. B. (2008). Theeffectiveness of opposing expert witnesses foreducating jurors about unreliable expert evidence.Law and Human Behavior, 32, 363-374.

14.

Levett, L., & Kovera, M. B. (2009). Psychologicalmediators of the effects of opposing experttestimony on juror decisions. Psychology, PublicPolicy, and Law, 15(2), 124-148.

15.

Lieberman, J. D., Carrell, C. A., Miethe, T. D., &Krauss, D. A. (2008). Gold versus Platinum: Dojurors recognize the superiority and limitations ofDNA evidence compared to other types offorensic evidence? Psychology, Public Policy andLaw, 14(1), 27-62.

16.

National Reserach Council (2009). Strengtheningforensic science in the United States: A pathforward. Washington DC: The NationalAcademies Press.

17.

New York County District Attorney's Office. (2010).http://manhattanda.org/organization/legaltraining/

18.

O'Neil, K. M., Patry, M. W., & Penrod, S. D. (2004).Exploring the effects of attitudes toward thedeath penalty on capital sentencing verdicts.Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 10, 443-470.

19.

Podlas, K. (2006). The CSI effect: Exposing themedia myth. The Fordham Intellectual Property,Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 16,429-465.

20.

Pozzulo, J. D., Lemieux, J. M. T., Wilson, A.,Crescini, C., & Girardi, A. (2009). The influenceof identification decision and DNA evidence onjuror decision making. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 39(9), 2069-2088.

21.

Reardon, M. C., O'Neil, K. M., & Lawson, K. (2007).A new definition of the CSI effect. Posterpresented at the annual American Psychology &Law Society conference: Adelaide, Autralia.

22.

Robbers, M. L. (2008). Blinded by science: Thesocial construction of reality in forensictelevision shows and its effect on criminal jurytrial. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(1),84-102.

23.

Saks, M. J., Wissler, R. L. (1984). Legal andpsychological bases of expert testimony: Surveysof the law and of jurors. Behavioral Sciencesand the Law, 2(4), 435-449.

24.

Schklar, J., & Diamond, S. S. (1999). Juror reactionsto DNA evidence: Error and expectancies. Lawand Human Behavior, 23(2) 159-184.

25.

SWGTREAD (2006). Standard Terminology forExpressing Conclusions of Forensic Footwearand Tire Impression Examination. RetrievedApril 27th, 2010 from http://www.swgtread.org/images/guidelines/published/10_terminology_expressing_conclusions.pdf

26.

Taroni, F., & Aitken, C. (1997). Forensic science attrial. Jurimetrics, 37, 327-337.

27.

Vergeer, M., Lubbers, M., & Scheepters, P. (2000).Exposure to Newspapers and Attitudes towardEthnic Minorities: A Longitudinal Analysis.Howard Journal of Communications, 11(2), 127-143.

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책