바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

ISSN : 1229-0653

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.28 No.2
Citation Share

Factors of Victim Influence Sentencing Judgment by the Jury on Sexual Harassement Cases

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2014, v.28 no.2, pp.25-40
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2014.28.2.002



& (2014). Factors of Victim Influence Sentencing Judgment by the Jury on Sexual Harassement Cases. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 28(2), 25-40, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2014.28.2.002
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

This research intended to examine an effect of extralegal factors such as victim's characteristics, etc. except for legal factors necessary for sentencing judgement of sexual violence on jury verdict. Thus, it intended to prepare empirical base to examine possibilities of unfair treatment of justice procedure for victims or the accused. the contents showed by this research are as follows. First, jury reduced determination of punishment of the accused by about the half averagely after they knew that victims of sexual violence have a career of charge withdrawal for previous sexual violence. Second, jury who was suggested by victims' previous work in similar prostitution tended to reduce determination of punishment of the accused in comparison with the time before the suggestion. Fourth, if suggesting a petition of victims of sexual violence, determination of punishment of the accused was significantly increased in comparison with the time before the suggestion. Among the three factors of victims, what makes the most effects on determination of punishment was a condition of charge withdrawal. Next, there were working in similar prostitution and suggestion of victim's petition in order. However, general influence was existing by treatment, but it implies that strength of influence was different by treatment condition among them. It should be necessary to examine verdict of jury for the utilization of victim factors as a ground of jury's determination of punishment through the quantitative analysis in the future. This research showed that there will be possibilities to make an effect on jury's legal judgement if extralegal victim factors are introduced to the court. In the future, we should make an effort to prepare procedural standard which can exclude extralegal factors before the gradually expanded execution of civic participation in criminal trials.

keywords
양형기준, 배심제, 국민참여재판, 성폭력, 피해자요인, 피해자유발, sentencing guidelines, a jury system, korean jury trial, sexual violence, victim main, victim precipitation

Reference

1.

조 국 (2002). 강간피해 고소여성의 성관계 이력의 증거사용 제한. 저스티스, 69, 178-191.

2.

김상준 (2003). 미국 배심재판 제도의 연구. 서울:이화여자대학교출판부.

3.

김광준, 박미숙, 이정민, 임유석, 추형관, 황지태 (2008). 형사정책과 사법개혁에 관한 조사연구 및 평가 2-국민참여재판에 대한 참관및 조사연구. 한국형사정책연구원: 연구총서, 21(143), 1-486.

4.

김봉수 (2008). 새로운 형사재판에서 피해자의권리보호. 피해자학연구, 16(1), 277-298.

5.

법원행정처 (2007). 국민참여재판의 이해. 서울: 법원행정처

6.

법원행정처 (2011). 국민참여재판 성과분석(2008-2010). 서울: 법원행정처

7.

손지선, 이수정 (2007). 가족 살해의 가해자의 특성과 양형요인에 대한 연구. 한국심리학회지:사회 및 성격, 21(1), 1-17.

8.

안영문 (2008). 당신이 판사. 부산: 산지니.

9.

이완규 (2008). 현행 국민참여재판제도의 문제점과 개선방향. 한국형사법학의 신전개: 이재상교수정년기념논문집. 서울: 박영사.

10.

이민식 (2009). 피해자관련 요인과 양형: 폭력범을 중심으로. 피해자학연구, 17(2), 109-131.

11.

이민식, 박미랑 (2010). 메스암페타민사범의 양형에 있어서 법적 요소와 법외적 요소의 영향. 형사정책, 22(2), 209-231.

12.

이춘화 (2011). 성폭력법죄에 대한 국민참여재판의 문제점과 개선방안. 형사정책, 23(1), 65-90.

13.

이현정 (2010). 성폭력범죄의 양형에 관한 연구. 성균관대대학원 박사학위논문.

14.

정현미 (2000). 성폭력범죄 형사절차상 이차적피해. 피해자학연구, 8, 162-200.

15.

최대권 (2004). 국민의 사법참여: 무엇이 문제인가. 서울대학교 법학, 45(3), 119-140.

16.

최훈석 (2009). 배심단에 관한 사회심리학적 이해. 법률신문 특별기고, 2013년 12월 10일검색, http://webzine.seoulbar.or.kr/include/printPage.asp?yymm=200801&articleclascd=A10400&articleseq=1

17.

한국성폭력상담소 (2007). 성폭력 조장하는 대법원판례바꾸기운동 1∼12차 자료집 모음. 서울: 한국성폭력상담소

18.

한국성폭력상담소 (2011). 보통의 경험. 서울: 이매진

19.

황성기 (2004). 특집 2: 참심제와 배심제의 헌법적합성 논쟁; 한국에서의 참심제와 배심제의 헌법적합성. 법과 사회, 26, 123-143.

20.

Albonetti, C. A. (1987). Priosecutorial discretion: The effects of uncertainty. Law & Society Reviw, 21, 291-313.

21.

Baumer, E. P. Messner, S., Felson, R. (2000). The Role of Victim Chaeacteristics in the Disposition of Murder Cases, Justice Quarterly, 17(2), 281-307.

22.

Dawson, M. (2004). Rethinking the Bounderies of Intimacy at the End of the Century: The Role of Victim Defendant Relationship in Justice Decisionmaking Over Time. Lew & Society Review, 38, 105-38.

23.

Dion, K. (1972). Physical attractiveness and evaluation of children's transgression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(2), 207-213.

24.

Drout, C. E., Gaertner, S. (1994). Gender differences in reactions to female victims. Social Bebavior and Personality, 22(3), 267-277.

25.

D'Alessio, S. J. and Stolzenberg, L. 1993. Socioeconomic status and the sentencing of the traditional offender. J. of Criminal Justice, 21, 61-77.

26.

Daly, K and Tonry, M. 1997. Gender, race, and sentencing. Crime and Justice, 22, 201-252.

27.

Frohmann, L. (1991). Discrediting victims' allegations of sexual assault: Prosecutorial accounts of case rejections. Social Problems, 38, 213-226.

28.

Hagan, J. (1974). Extra-legal attributes and criminal sentencing: An assessment of a sociological viewpoint. Law and Society Review, 8, 357-383.

29.

Kingsnorth, R. (1999). Sexual Assault: The Role of Prior Relationship and Victim Characteristics in Case Processing. Justice Quarterly, 16, 275-302.

30.

Kramer, J. H., Ulmer J. T. (2009). Sentencing Guidelines: Lessons From Pennsylvania, London:Lynne Rienner Publishers.

31.

Lafree, G. D., Reskin, B. F., Visher, C. A. (1985). Jurors' responses to victims’behavior and legal issues in sexual assault trials. Social Problems, 32(4), 389-405.

32.

Myers, M. A. (1980). Personal and situational contingencies in the processing of convicted felons. Sociological Inquiry, 50(1), 65-74.

33.

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

34.

Steffensmeier, D., John K., Jeffery U. (1995). Age differences in criminal sentencing. Justice Quarterly 12, 701-719.

35.

Spohn, C. C., J. Spears (1997). The effect of offender and victim characteristice on sexual assault case processing decisions. Justice Quarterly, 13(4), 649-679.

36.

Temkin. J. (1987) Rape and the Legal Process, London:Sweet & Maxwell

37.

Woifgang, M. (1958). Patterns in Criminal Homicide, Philadelphia: Univ. of Penn Press.

38.

Zata, M. (2000). The convergence of race, ethnicity, gender, and class on court decisionmaking:Looking toward the 21st century. Criminal Justice, 3, 503-552.

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy