바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

ISSN : 1229-0653

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.27 No.4

Citation Share

A Comparative Study on Sentences of Judge and Jury in Voluntary Intoxication Defence Cases in Korea

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2013, v.27 no.4, pp.69-87
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2013.27.4.004



& (2013). A Comparative Study on Sentences of Judge and Jury in Voluntary Intoxication Defence Cases in Korea. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 27(4), 69-87, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2013.27.4.004

Abstract

In Korea, judgments of the trials have been traditionally determined by judges. The press and people have always cast questions about the properness of court’s decision making process because they could not access the information of court’s decisions. Especially the issue has become sensational when a defendant obtains lenient sentence by applying voluntary intoxication defence as a mitigating factor. Now in Korea, jury trials became operative. In this study, we first checked the jury's decision making process on the criteria of GBMI or NGRI by voluntary intoxication in Korea and compared it with the corresponding criteria of the U.S. Then we analyzed all voluntary intoxication defence cases of jury trials in Korea from 2008 to 2011 in order to find differences of sentencing between jury and judge decisions. We found the interaction effect between subject of the judgment and acceptance of voluntary intoxication defence. When voluntary intoxication defence was accepted, jury made more lenient sentences than the judge but when it was not, jury made harsher sentences than the judge. Analyses of variances presented significant main effects of crime types as well as acceptance of voluntary intoxication defence. In comparing the effects of subject of the judgment (jury or judge) for the acceptance of voluntary intoxication defence and repeated crime, we only found a main effect of acceptance of voluntary intoxication defence.

keywords
국민참여재판, 주취감경, 임의명정, 심신미약, 양형판단, jury trial, voluntary intoxication, GBMI, NGRI, sentencing

Reference

1.

김대성 (2012). 국민참여재판에서의 배심원의 양형 참여. 법학연구, 15(1), 185-213.

2.

김병천 (2011). 酩酊狀態의 心神障碍 判斷 基準 硏究: 精神異常 抗辯을 中心으로. 고려대학교 법무대 학원 석사학위논문.

3.

김진환 (2003). 정신장애 범죄자의 책임과 처우에 관한 연구. 한양대학교 일반대학원 박사학위논문.

4.

김형준 (1993). 명정범죄의 형사책임에 관한 연구. 중앙대학교 일반대학원 박사학위논문.

5.

신동운 (2001). 형법총론. 경기: 법문사.

6.

이인영 (2010). 책임능력에 대한 판단과 정신감정절차. 홍익법학, 11(2), 157-190.

7.

이재상 (2008). 형법총론 제5판(보정판). 서울: 박영사.

8.

이형국 (2007). 형법총론. 경기: 법문사.

9.

정세종 (2010). 명정범죄의 형사책임에 관한 고찰. 한국범죄심리연구, 6(1), 239-259.

10.

정하늘 (2011). 미국법 해설. 서울: 박영사.

11.

주용기 (2009). 법원의 책임능력평가에 관한 형사정책적 검토. 한양법학, 20(3), 389-421.

12.

한상훈 (2006). 입법동향분석: 국민의 형사재판참여제도 입법논의. 법과사회, 30, 303-316.

13.

한상훈 (2009). 명정상태 범죄자의 형사책임과 개선방안. 서울: 한국형사정책연구원.

14.

황순택 (2013). 범죄 수사와 재판 과정에서 임상심리학자의 업무. 제 15회 법과 심리 과학 포럼, 5월 24일. 서울: 숙명여자대학교 진리관.

15.

Boettcher, M. J. (1987). Voluntary intoxication: a defense to specific intent crimes. University of Detroit Law Review, 65, 33-71.

16.

Doob, A. N., & Roberts, J. V. (1984). Social psychology, social attitudes, and attitudes toward sentencing. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 16(4), 269-280.

17.

Durham v. United States, 1954, 94 U. S. App. D. C. 228, 230, 214 F.2d 862, 864, 45 A. L. R. 2d 1430.

18.

Jewell v. Commonwealth, 549 S. W. 2d 807 (Ky. 1977).

19.

LaFave, W. R. (2000). Criminal Law 3rd edition. St Paul, MN: West.

20.

LaFave, W. R., & Scott, A. W. (1986 & 1998 Supp.). Substantive Criminal Law. St Paul, MN: West.

21.

Maher, G. Q. C. (2005) Age and criminal responsibility. Ohio State Journal of Crimnal Law, 2, 493-512.

22.

Marlowe, D. B., Lambert, J. B., & Thompson, R. G. (1999). Voluntary Intoxication and criminal responsibility. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 195-217.

23.

McGinley, H., & Pasewark, R. (1989). National survey of the frequency and success of insanity pleas and alternative pleas. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 17, 205-221.

24.

Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers. New York: Guilford.

25.

Robinson, P. H. (1984 & 1997 Supp.). Criminal Law Defenses. St. Paul, MN: West.

26.

State v. Mitts, 81 Ohio St.3d 223, 690 N. E.2d 522 (1998), reconsideration denied, 82 Ohio St.3d 1444, 695 N. E. 2d 266 (June 17, 1998).

27.

Stevenson, C. S., Bottoms, B. L., & Diamond, S. S. S. (2010). Juror's discussions of a defendant's history of child abuse and alcohol abuse in capital sentencing deliberations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 1-38.

28.

Weninger, R. A. (1994). Jury Sentencing in Noncapital Cases: A Case Study of El Paso County, Texas. Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law, 45(3), 3-40.

29.

Wrightsman, L. S., Nietzel, M., & Fortune, W. (1994). Psychology and the legal system (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

30.

Zamble, E., & Kalm, K. L. (1990). General and Specific Measures of Public Attitudes toward Sentencing. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 22(3), 327-337.

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy