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.27 No.2

Citation Share

일반인의 정당방위 판단에 대한 법문화의 영향

Effects of legal culture on lay judgment of self-defense

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2013, v.27 no.2, pp.69-83
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2013.27.2.005
성유리 (충북대학교)
김종한 (Costal Carolina University)
Cynthia A. Meyersburg (Coastal Carolina University)
박광배 (충북대학교)
성유리, 김종한, Cynthia, A. M. , & 박광배. (2013). 일반인의 정당방위 판단에 대한 법문화의 영향. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 27(2), 69-83, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2013.27.2.005

초록

배심원이 피고인의 유무죄를 판단하는 데는 다양한 사회심리학적 편향성이 개입될 수 있으며, 문화에 따라 타인의 행위를 이해하는데 차이가 있는 것으로 알려져 있다. 본 연구는 한국에 거주하는 한국인대학생 202명과 미국에 거주하는 미국인 205명을 대상으로 법지식이 없는 일반인도 정당방위 주장에 대한 상식적인 판단을 할 때 법전문가들과 마찬가지로 상황요인을 중요한 판단기준으로 사용하는지의 여부와 그 판단에 법문화의 영향이 있는지를 확인하였다. 피고인이 정당방위를 주장한 실제의 정당방위 사건의 내용을 토대로 위험의 ‘현재성’(부당한 침해의 급박성)을 조작한 두개의 사건시나리오를 구성하고, 사건종류(2수준), 국가(2수준), 현재성(2수준)의 8개 조건에서 피고인의 정당방위 주장에 대한 참가자들의 판단을 분석한 결과, 미국인이 한국인에 비해 정당방위를 월등하게 높은 비율로 인정하였고, 한국인과 미국인 모두 현재성이 존재하는 조건에서 정당방위를 더 많이 인정하였다. 이런 결과는 사회심리학에서 널리 알려진 문화적 귀인양식(근본귀인오류)의 차이보다 국가 간 법문화의 차이가 일반인의 정당방위 판단에 강력한 영향을 미친다는 것을 시사한다. 이 결과가 정당방위 여부가 다투어지는 배심재판에 대해 가지는 함의가 논의되었다.

keywords
정당방위, 법문화, 근본귀인오류, judgment of self-defense, legal culture, fundamental attribution error

Abstract

Two questions about lay people’s judgment of self-defense plea were examined with trial scenarios based on actual criminal cases in which the defendants plead not guilty by reason of self-defense: (1) Whether legal culture or cultural style of attribution influences the lay judgment of self-defense; (2) Whether lay people use situational information to determine self-defense. From the responses of 202 Korean and 205 American college students, it was suggested that legal culture, but not the cultural style of attribution, exerts strong influences on the lay judgments of self-defense. It was also found that lay people, regardless of culture, incorporate situational information sensitively to arrive at a judgment of self-defense. Implications of the findings for jury trials in which the defendants claim self-defense were discussed.

keywords
정당방위, 법문화, 근본귀인오류, judgment of self-defense, legal culture, fundamental attribution error

참고문헌

1.

김태명 (2008). 우리나라에서의 정당방위에 대한 역사적 고찰. 동북아법연구, 2(1), 329-363.

2.

성유리, 박광배 (2012). 일반인의 정당방위 판단. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 26(3), 1-12.

3.

손해목 (1996). 형법총론. 법문사.

4.

신대철 (2002). 정당방위에 관한 연구. 비교법학, 2, 577-601.

5.

이용식 (1995). 정당방위와 긴급피난의 몇 가지 요건. 형사판례연구, 3, 89.

6.

Andrews, P. W. (2001). The psychology of social chess and the evolution of attribution mechanisms: Explaining the fundamental attribution error. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 11-29.

7.

Baron, M. (2005). Justifications and excuses. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 2, 387-406.

8.

Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). Situational salience and cultural differences in the correspondence bias and in the actor-observer bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 949-960.

9.

Choi, I., Nisbett, R. E., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). Causal attribution across cultures: variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 47-63.

10.

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.

11.

Davies, S. M. (1991). Evidence of character to prove conduct: A reassessment of relevancy. Criminal Law Bulletin, 27, 504-537.

12.

Dripps, D. A. (2003). Fundamental attribution error: Criminal justice and the social psychology of blame. Vanderbilt Law Review, 56, 1383-1438.

13.

Gilbert, D. T., & Jones, E. E. (1986). Perceiver- induced constraint: Interpretations of self- generated reality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 269-280.

14.

Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21-38.

15.

Gold, V. J. (1983). Federal rule of evidence 403: Observations on the nature of unfairly prejudicial evidence. Washington Law Review, 58, 497-506.

16.

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.

17.

Grumer, J. (2004). IX. Self-Defense. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 36, 1575-1595.

18.

Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error Management Theory: A New Perspective on Biases in Cross-Sex Mind Reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 81-91.

19.

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.), Progress in Asian social psychology (Vol. 1, pp.135-146). Singapore: Wiley.

20.

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.

21.

Jones, E. E. (1979). The rocky road from acts to dispositions. American Psychologist, 34(2), 107-117.

22.

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. Ⅱ, pp.219- 266). New York: Academic Press.

23.

Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1-24.

24.

Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of the behavior. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins and B. Weiner (eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp.79-94). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

25.

Lelling, A. E. (1998) A psychological critique of character-based theories of criminal excuse. Syracuse Law Review, 49, 35-89.

26.

Lerner, M. J. (1980). The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. Plenum: New York.

27.

Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. D. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

28.

Malone, L. A. (2009). Is there really a difference between justification and excuse, or did we academics make it up? Texas Tech Law Review, 42, 321-325.

29.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991a). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

30.

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.

31.

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.

32.

Morris, M. W. (1993). Culture and case: American and Chinese understandings of physical and social causality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.

33.

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.

34.

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.

35.

Pennington, N. & Hastie, R. (1990). Practical Implications of Psychological Research on Juror and Jury Decision Making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(1), 90-105.

36.

Pennington, N. & Hastie, R. (1991). A Cognitive Theory of Juror Decision Making: The Story Model. Cardozo Law Review, 13, 519-557

37.

Robinson, P. H. & Darley, J. M. (1996). Justice, Liability, and Blame: Community Views and the Criminal Law (New Directions in Social Psychology). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

38.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport's cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5(4): 461-476.

39.

Quintanilla, V. D. (2010). (Mis)judging intent: The fundamental attribution error in federal securities law. New York University Journal of Law and Business, 7, 195-246.

40.

Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in experimental social psychology, 10, 174-228.

41.

Schneider, D. J., Hastorf, A. H., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1979). Person perception. Reading, Mass.: Addison -Wesley.

42.

Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240-275.

43.

Slobogin, C. (2002). Race-based defenses: The insights of traditional analysis. Arkansas Law Review, 54, 739-776.

44.

Snyder, M., & Jones, E. E. (1974). Attitude attribution when behavior is constrained. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 585-600.

45.

Smith, V. L. (1991). Prototypes in the courtroom: Lay representations of legal concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 857-872.

46.

Vonk, R. (1999). Impression Formation and Impression Management: Motives, Traits, and Likeability Inferred from Self-Promoting and Self-Deprecating Behavior. Social Cognition, 17(4), 390-412.

47.

Yost, J. H., & Weary, G. (1996). Depression and the Correspondent Inference Bias: Evidence for more Effortful Cognitive Processing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 192-200.

48.

Zebrowitz, L. A. (1990). Social perception. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책