바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

ISSN : 1229-0653

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.28 No.4

Citation Share

Effects of ‘Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’ Instruction Types and Use of Question Trail Flowchart on Juror’s Comprehension and Verdict

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2014, v.28 no.4, pp.71-89
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2014.28.4.004


& (2014). Effects of ‘Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’ Instruction Types and Use of Question Trail Flowchart on Juror’s Comprehension and Verdict. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 28(4), 71-89, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2014.28.4.004

Abstract

In this research, three different ‘Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’ instruction types are sorted by psycholinguistic factors and contents, which are previously provided forms in actual process. Presentation of visual aid for better comprehension of legal principles is another variable. To sum, this study is 3 x 2 between-subjects design. 403 people participated in this survey, they responded to the questions regarding guilty judgements and degree of understanding after reviewing summary on the dramatized actual criminal cases. They were also required to consider the minimum prerequisite for deciding ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’, as well as on which side of the judgements the instructions were focused. As results, recall scores are appeared relevantly higher with simpler instruction than other types, for understanding scores, with visual aid than without it. Also, instruction containing presumption of innocence and prosecutor’s burden of proof is considered to be more emphasized on the ‘Not guilty’ side than ‘Guilty’ one. Unexpectedly, emphasis on the ‘Not guilty’ side in instruction, recall scores and understanding scores are rather clearly appeared as a significant preestimated variable on the percentage of ‘Guilty’ judgement. This research raised the necessity for standardization of the jury instructions in the korean court, accompanying with the positive effect on the understanding with use of visual aid.

keywords
국민참여재판, 합리적 의심 없는 증명의 원칙, 배심원 지시문, 배심원의 이해도, 판단 길잡이, beyond a reasonable doubt, jury instruction, jury comprehension, visual aid, Question Trails

Reference

1.

박재현 (2010). 배심제와 법심리학. 서울: 오래.

2.

신동운, (2013). 간추린 신 형사소송법. 서울: 지학사.

3.

조현욱 (2012). 형사재판에서 범죄사실을 유죄로 인정하기 위한 심증형성의 정도에 있어 합리적 의심 - 대법원 2008.3.13 선고 2007도10754 판결 -. 홍익법학 제13권 제2호, 433- 465.

4.

조원철, (2010). 심급별로 사실인정이 달라진 사건의 원인 분석(형사편), 법관의 의사결정: 이론과 실무, 사법 발전재단.

5.

Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: a study in experimental and social Psychology, Oxford, UK: Macmillan. In Kelley, E., L. (2010). Provided Notes as an alternative to juror notetaking: The effects of deliberation and trial complexity. Doctorial Dissertation, University of Tasmania. Australia.

6.

Bell, B., & Loftus, E. (1985). Vivid persuasion in the courtroom. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 659-664.

7.

Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulation: Is the jury still out?, Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.

8.

Brewer, N., Harven, S., & Semmler, C. (2004). Improving comprehension of jury instructions with audio-visual Presentation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 765-776

9.

Charow, R. P., & Charow, V. R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: a psycholinguistic study of instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79, 1306-1374.

10.

Clough, J. (2013). The Role of Question Trails in Assisting Juror Comprehension. Australian National University, 10th Annual Jury Research and Practice Conference, 8 February 2013, Canberra, Australia.

11.

Daftary-Kapur, T., Dumas, R., & Penrod, S. D. (2010). Jury decision making biases and methods tocounter them. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 15, 133-154.

12.

Dattu, E. (1998). Illustrated jury instructions: A proposal. Law and Psychology Review, 22, 67-102.

13.

Ede, T., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2013). Question Trails in trials: Structured versus unstructured juror decision-making. Criminal Law Journal, 37, 114-136.

14.

Elwork, A., & Sales, B. D. (1985). Jury Instructions. In Kassin, S., M., & Wrightsman, L., S. (Eds), The Psychology of evidence and trial procedure(pp. 280-297). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

15.

Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1977). Juridic decisions: In ignorance of the law or in light of it? Law and Human Behavior, 1, 163-189.

16.

Finkel, N. (1995). Commonsense justice: Juror's notions of the law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

17.

Graesser, A. C. (1981a). Reading and writing from multiple perspectives, Psyccritiques, 26, 296-296. InKelley, E. L. (2010). Provided Notes as an alternative to juror notetaking: The effects of deliberation and trial complexity. Doctorial Dissertation, University of Tasmania. Australia.

18.

Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the Jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

19.

Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Instructing Jurors: A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions, Law and Human Behavior, 13, 409-430.

20.

Horowitz, I. A., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (1996). A concept in search of a definition: the effects of reasonable doubt instructions on certainty of guilt standards and jury verdicts. Law and Human behavior, 20, 655-670.

21.

Kagehiro, D. K., & Stanton, W. C. (1985). Legal vs. quantified definitions of standards of proof. Law and Human Behavior, 9(2), 159-178.

22.

Kelley, E. L. (2010). Provided Notes as an alternative to juror notetaking: The effects of deliberation and trial complexity. Doctorial Dissertation, University of Tasmania. Australia.

23.

Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Stasser, G., Meek, D., Holt, R. W., & Davis, J. H. (1976). Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgements of mock jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 282-294.

24.

Langer, I., Schultz, T., Meffer, J., & Tausch, R. (1973). Characteristics of intelligibility of written information and instruction text, Zeitschrift fuer Experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 20, 269-286.

25.

Rose, V. G., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2001). The comprehensibility of jury instructions: A method and an examples, Law and Human Behavior, 25(4), 409-431

26.

Otto, A. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1994). The Biasing Impact of Pretrial Publicity on Juror Judgement. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 453-470.

27.

Severance, L. J., & Loftus, E. (1982). Improving the ability of jurors to comprehend and apply criminal jury instructions. Law & Society Review, 17(1), 153-197.

28.

Smith, V. L. (1993). When prior knowledge and law collide - helping juror's use the law, Law and Human Behavior, 17, 5, 507-536.

29.

Steele, W. W., & Thornburg, E. G. (1988-89). Jury Instructions: A persistent failure to communicate. North Carolina Law Review, 67, 77-119.

30.

Strawn, D. J., & Buchanan, R. W. (1976). Jury confusion: A threat to Justice. Judicature, 59, 478-483.

31.

Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-233.

32.

Young, W. (2003). Summing up to juries in criminal cases - What jury research says about current rules and practices. Criminal Law Review, 665- 689.

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy