바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

ISSN : 1229-0653

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.26 No.4

Citation Share

High-rolling Criminals: The Effect of Socioeconomic Status on Punitive Judgment and its Psychological Mechanism

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2012, v.26 no.4, pp.127-140
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2012.26.4.008


& (2012). High-rolling Criminals: The Effect of Socioeconomic Status on Punitive Judgment and its Psychological Mechanism. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 26(4), 127-140, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2012.26.4.008

Abstract

The present study aims to replicate the interaction of just world belief(JWB) and just world hope(JWH), and to investigate the effect of criminal’s socioeconomic status(SES), type of crime, and the participants’ recognition of just world on punitive judgment. 322 participants completed the JWB scale (Rubin & Peplau, 1975) and JWH scale (Choi & Hur, 2011) and made punishment decisions after reading one of the four crime scenarios that waried in the criminal's SES (high or low) and the type of crime (embezzlement or robbery by hostage). Embezzlement is a crime typical for criminals with high SES and Robbery by hostage is a crime typical for criminals with low SES. Blameworthiness, attribution, severity of damage, and likelihood of recidivism, which may explain one’s punitive judgment, were also measured. First, people who believe that the world is just did not vary on punitive judgment regardless of their just world hope, but among those who do not believe that the world is just, people holding high (vs. low) just world hope gave harsher punishment. Second, regardless of the type of crime committed, participant’s just world hope did not affect their punitive decision on criminals with low SES, but participants holding high (vs. low) hope for a just world imposed more severe punishment to criminals with high SES. Third, criminals with high SES were thought to be more blameworthy, more attributed by disposition, and more likely to recommit crime than criminals with low SES, regardless of the type of crime. These findings may suggest that there may be other psychological mechanisms in addition to the typicality of crime when determining the punitive judgment for criminals with high SES. The findings are discussed in regard to perception of socioeconomic status and the function of criminal punishment in Korea.

keywords
socioeconomic status, crime typicality, just world belief, just world hope, punitive judgment, 범죄자의 사회경제적지위, 범죄의 전형성, 공정세상 믿음, 공정세상 기대, 처벌판단

Reference

1.

경제개혁연대 (2007). 우리나라 법원의 화이트칼라 범죄 양형분석: 법원의 집행유예 선고율을 중심으로(경제개혁리포트, 2007-8). 서울: 경제개혁연대.

2.

고재홍 (1995). 처벌 판단에 관여하는 정보들의 통합방식에 관한 연구. 서울대학교대학원 박사학위청구논문.

3.

김범준, 최승혁 (2008). 처벌 기준이 양형판단에 미치는 효과: 남녀차이. 한국심리학회지: 여성, 13(3), 343-361.

4.

대검찰청 (2010). 범죄분석. 서울: 대검찰청.

5.

문성우 (2007, 5, 25). 비슷한 범죄엔 비슷한 처벌... ‘법앞의 평등’ 구현. 국정브리핑.

6.

박희찬, 김혜숙 (2010). 범죄자에 대한 고정관념과 처벌 관련 판단. 한국심리학회지: 사회및성격, 24(2), 27-49.

7.

법원행정처 (1999). 양형실무. 서울: 법원행정처.

8.

최승혁, 김범준, 김시업 (2009). 화이트칼라 범죄에 대한 처벌철학과 양형판단. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 23(3), 1-17.

9.

최승혁, 허태균 (2011). 공정한 사회를 위한 형사처벌: 공정세상 믿음 및 기대의 상호작용. 한국심리학회지: 사회및성격, 25(2), 113-125.

10.

최훈석, 박은영 (2008). 응보, 일반인 제지, 및 무력화 목적에 따른 처벌 판단 비교. 한국심리학회지: 사회및성격, 22(4), 175-195.

11.

Bodenhausen, G. V. & Wyer, R. S. (1985). Effects of stereotypes on decision making and informationprocessing strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 267-282.

12.

Espinoza, R. K. & Willis-Esqueda, C. (2008). Defendant and defense attorney characteristics and their effects on juror decision making and prejudice against Mexican Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14(4), 364-371.

13.

Freeman, N. J. (2006). Socioeconomic status and belief in a just world: Sentencing of criminal defendants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(10), 2379-2394.

14.

Gerbasi, K. C., & Zuckerman, M. (1975, April). Experimental investigation of jury biasing factors. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, New York, (unpublished).

15.

Gleason, J. M. & Harris, V. A. (1976). Group discussion and defendant's socio-economic status as determinants of judgments by simulated jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 6(2), 186-191.

16.

Gordon, R. A. (1990). Attributions for blue-collar and white-collar crime: The effects of subject and defendant race on simulated juror decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(12), 971-983.

17.

Gordon, R. A., Bindrim, T. A., McNicholas, M. L., & Walden, T. L. (1987). Perceptions of blue-collar and white-collar crime: The effect of defendant race on simulated juror decisions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 128(2), 191-197.

18.

Gordon, R. A., Michels, J. L., & Nelson, C. L. (1996). Majority group perceptions of criminal behavior: The accuracy of race-related crime stereotypes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(2), 148-159.

19.

Hoffman, E. (1981). Social class correlates or perceived offender typicality. Psychological Reports, 49, 347-350.

20.

Izzett, R. (1974). Personal communication, (unpublished).

21.

Mazzella, R., & Feingold, A. (1994). The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A meta-analysis.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(15), 1315-1344.

22.

Osborne, Y. H., & Rappaport, N. B. (1985). Sentencing severity with mock jurors: Predictive validity of three categories. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 3, 467-473.

23.

Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1975). Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 65-89.

24.

Stawiski, S., Dykema-Engblade, A., & Tindale, R. S. (2012). The roles of shared stereotypes and shared processing goals on mock jury decision making. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34, 88-97.

25.

Willis-Esqueda, C. W., Espinoza, R. K. E., & Culhane, S. E. (2008). The effects of ethnicity, SES, and crime status on juror decision making: A cross-cultural examination of European American and Mexican American mock jurors. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 30(2), 181-199.

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy