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.30 No.1

Citation Share

형사재판에서 잘못된 평결에 대한 비효용성 판단

Common-sense Disutility of the Erroneous Verdicts in Criminal Trials

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2016, v.30 no.1, pp.81-91
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2016.30.1.005
박광배 (충북대학교)
성유리 (충북대학교)
박광배, & 성유리. (2016). 형사재판에서 잘못된 평결에 대한 비효용성 판단. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 30(1), 81-91, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2016.30.1.005

Abstract

As expressed by the famous Blackstone’s ratio, the beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof is based on the law’s primary motivation to avoid false conviction at the expense of increasing the probability of false acquittal. In contrast, jurors may have common-sense motivation to avoid both types of error. With 100 juror-eligible adults in Korea, the present study demonstrated that utilities of the two types of decision error were evaluated relative to those of the correct decisions rather than each other. The utility of false conviction was evaluated relative to that of a correct acquittal of an innocent defendant, and the utility of false acquittal in relation to that of a correct conviction of a guilty defendant. If this psychological configuration of the utilities is held by jurors in the courtroom, it suggests that they may have double standards for the fact-finding; one to decide on the question of guilt under the presumption of innocence and the other to decide on the question of innocence deduced from the presumption of guilt. Double standards will increase the frequency of punishing innocent defendants.

keywords
효용성, 죄없는 사람의 유죄판결, 죄있는 사람의 무죄판결, 입증기준, standard of proof, false conviction, false acquittal, utility

참고문헌

1.

Arkes, H. R., & Mellers, B. A. (2002). Do juries meet our expectations? Law and Human Behavior, 26, 625-639.

2.

Brown, D. K. (2000). Regulating decision effects of legally sufficient jury instructions. South California Law Review, 73, 1105.

3.

Buchanan, R. W., Pryor, B., Taylor, K. P., & Strawn, D. U. (1978). Legal communication: An investigation of juror comprehension of pattern instructions. Communication Monographs, 26, 31-35.

4.

Carroll, J. D., & Chang, J. J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an N-way generalization of Eckart-Young decomposition. Psychometrika, 35, 283–319.

5.

Carroll, J. D., & Wish, M. (1974). Models and methods for three-way multidimensional scaling. D. H. Krantz, R. C. Atkinson, R. D. Luce, & P. Suppes. (eds.) Contemporary Developments in Mathematical Psychology, Vol.II: Measurement, Psychophysics, and Neural Information Processing. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.

6.

Connolly, T. (1987). Decision theory, reasonable doubt, and utility of erroneous acquittals. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 101–112.

7.

Cronan, J. P. (2002). Is any of this making sense? Reflecting on guilty pleas to aid criminal juror comprehension. American Criminal Law Review, 39, 3, 1187-1259.

8.

Dane, F. C. (1985). In search of reasonable doubt. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 141–158.

9.

DeKay, M. L. (1996). The difference between Blackstone-like error ratios and probabilistic standards of proof. Law and Social Inquiry, 21, 95-132.

10.

Ellsworth, P. C., & Reifman, A. (2000). Juror comprehension and public policy: Perceived problems and proposed solutions. Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 6, 788–792.

11.

Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Suggs, D. (1981). The trial: A research review. In B. Sales (Eds.), The Trial Process. New York: Plenum.

12.

Fried, M., Kaplan, K. J., & Klein, K. W. (1975). Juror selection: An analysis of voir dire. In R. J. Simon (Ed.), The juror system in America: A critical overview (pp. 58–64). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

13.

Garvey, S. P., Johnson, S. L., & Marcus, P. (2000). Correcting deadly confusion: Responding to jury inquiries in capital cases. Cornell Law Review, 85, 628–633.

14.

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

15.

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

16.

In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970).

17.

Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29, 1–27.

18.

Kruskal, J. B., & M. Wish (1978). Multidimensional Scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

19.

Laudan, L. (2003). Is reasonable doubt reasonable? Legal Theory, 9, 295-331.

20.

Mardia, K. V. (1972). Statistics of Directional Data. New York: Academic Press.

21.

Mardia, K. V., Kent, J. T., & Bibby, J. M. (1979). Multivariate Analysis. New York: Academic Press.

22.

Mueller, C. B., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (2009). Evidence (4thed). Aspen: Wolters Kluwer.

23.

Nagel, S. S. (1979). Bringing the values of jurors in line with the law. Judicature, 63, 189–195.

24.

Nagel, S. S., & Neef, M. G. (1979). Decision Theory and the Legal Process. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

25.

Newman, J. O. (1993). Beyond “reasonable doubt.” New York University Law Review, 68, 979-1002.

26.

Reifman, A., Gusick, S. M., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1992). Real jurors' understanding of the law in real cases. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 539-554.

27.

Samuelson, P. A., & Nordhaus, W. D. (2009), Economics: An Introductory Analysis (19th Ed.) Mc Graw–Hill.

28.

Saxton, B. (1998). How well do jurors understand jury instructions? A field test using real juries and real trials in Wyoming. Land and Water Law Review, 33, 59-189.

29.

Stoffelmayr, E., & Diamond, S. S. (2000). The conflict between precision and flexibility in explaining “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 6, 769–787.

30.

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

31.

Whitman, J. Q. (2008). The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial. New Haven: Yale University Press.

32.

Young, W., Cameron, N., & Tinsley, Y. (2001). Juries in criminal trials (Report 69). Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Law Commission.

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책