,..,,,.,,,..,,, ( 46 1 ).,,,,. (presumption of innocence), (burden of proof), (standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt).,, (, 2010).,,,. ( )

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download ",..,,,.,,,..,,, ( 46 1 ).,,,,. (presumption of innocence), (burden of proof), (standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt).,, (, 2010).,,,. ( )"

정 여
5 years ago
Views:

1 *., (, ) / , : 1), 2).,,.,. * 2013 (This work was supported by the research grant of Chungbuk National University in 2013). :,, ( ) 52 Tel : , kwangbai@chungbuk.ac.kr

2 ,..,,,.,,,..,,, ( 46 1 ).,,,,. (presumption of innocence), (burden of proof), (standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt).,, (, 2010).,,,. ( ). (Newman, 1993; United States v. Fatico, 1979).,., (e.g., Kagehiro & Stanton, 1985),., McCullough v. State(1983)

3 . (2013),.,. (Cohen, 2000), ( )..,,. ForsterLee Horowitz(2003),. / (ForsterLee & Horowitz, 2003).,, (McBride, 1969).,,,.,, (Heuer, & Penrod, (1989).,,,, (Goldberg, 1981; Elwork, Sales, & Alfini, 1977; Smith, 1991; Kassin, & Wrightsman, 1979; ForsterLee & Horowitz, 2003; Simon, 2004)., (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1979; Elwork, Sales, & Alfini, 1977). ForsterLee, Horwitz Bourgeois(1993).,,,. (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1979; Ingriselli, 2015).

4 ?,..,,..,.,. ( ).,., (decision threshold) (Newman, 1993)..,... (direct rate). (certainty) 0% 100% (McCauliff, 1982). Simon(1969) (,,,,, ),. Simon Mahan(1971) 69 88,, , Simon(1969).

5 . (statistical decision theory) (Tribe, 1971),. (,,, ) (utility), (Fried, Kaplan, & Klein, 1975). (Nagel, Lamm, & Neef, 1981; Nagel, 1979; MacCoun, 1984; Thomson, Cowan, Ellsworth, & Harrington, 1984; Dane, 1985; MacCoun & Kerr, 1988; MacCoun & Tyler, 1988), 0 (Dane, 1985)., Dhami (2008) (membership function method), (, 80% 0 20 ).,..,, (, 2006).,. (probative value)..,. (In re Winship, 1970; Sullivan v. Louisiana, 1993).,.,

6 ,, (ForsterLee, Horowitz, & Bourgeois, 1993).,,.,,.,,,,.,..,,, , % ( 87, 102 ) (SD=8.63, : 20~58 ). (,,,,,, 2008),. Stoffelmayr & Diamond (2000)

7 ,, (Federal Judicial Center: FJC) (Federal Judicial Center).,,,,,,,,. 3 :,,., ( ( ) ) +5 ( ( ) ) 11.. ( ), ( ) 0% 100%..,.. 10.

8 ,,. (F=1.47, ns).,, 1. 1, (76.4%), (83.6%) (84.1%). (chai-square analysis), ( =1.18, ns). 0% 100%, (M=71.47, SD=18.31), (M=69.67, SD=21.79), (M=65.25, SD=22.49), ( ) 1.,.., (F=3.35, p<.05)., (M=-1.24, SD=2.86) (M=-0.02, SD=2.25) N % M SD

9 . 9..,,,,.,,.,. (, ).,.. ( 50%) ( 80%), 70% 75%

10 ( ).,,..., (Gigerenzer & Todd 1999; Payne, Bettman, & Johnson, 1988).,,.,.. Heuer Penrod(1989),. Elwork, Sales Alfini(1977),.,, (Elwork, Sales, & Alfini, 1977).. (2013) (Wells effect),, (wells, 1992). (risk) (,, 2013)., 1 ( )..,

11 (metacognition) , (Ellsworth, 1989; Hastie, Penrod, & Pennington, 1983)..,... (2013).. (1), (2006).. (4), ,,,,, (2008). ( ): , (2013).. (2), (2010) Cohen, N. P. (2000). The Timing of Jury Instructions. Tennessee Law Review, 67, Dane, F. C. (1985). In search of reasonable doubt. Law and Human Behavior, 9, Dhami, M. K. (2008). On measuring quantitative interpretations of reasonable doubt. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(4), Ellsworth, P. C. (1989). Are twelve heads better than one?. Law and Contemporary Problems, 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(2), 163. Federal Judicial Center. (1987). Pattern criminal jury instructions. Washington, DC: Author. ForsterLee, L., & Horowitz, I. A. (2003). The effects of jury-aid innovations on juror performance in complex civil trials. Judicature, 86(4),

12 ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I. A., & Bourgeois, M. J. (1993). Juror competence in civil trials: Effects of preinstruction and evidence technicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 14. 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. Gigerenzer & Todd (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Evolution and cognition. New York: Oxford University Press. Goldberg, J. C. (1981). Memory, Magic, and Myth: The Timing of Jury Instructions. Oregon Law Review, 59(4), Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Instructing jurors: A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 13(4), 409. In re Winship (1970). 397 U.S Ingriselli, E. (2015). Mitigating Jurors' Racial Biases: The Effects of Content and Timing of Jury Instructions. Yale LJ, 124, Kagehiro, D. K., & Stanton, W. C. (1985). Legal vs. quantified definitions of standards of proof. Law and Human Behavior, 9, Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1979). On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), MacCoun, R. J. (1984). Modeling the impact of extralegal bias and defined standards of proof on the decisions of mock jurors and juries. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 700B. MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, MacCoun, R. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The basis of citizen's perceptions of the criminal jury. Law and Human Behavior, 12(3), McBride, R. L. (1969). The art of instruction the jury. Cincinnate, Ohio: W. H. Anderson. McCauliff, C. M. A. (1982). Burdens of proof: Degrees of belief, quanta of evidence, or constitutional guarantees? Vanderbilt Law Review, 35, McCullough v. State (1983). 657 P. 2d Nagel, S. S. (1979). Bringing the values of jurors in line with the law. Judicature, 63, Nagel, S., Lamm, D., & Neef, M. (1981). Decision theory and juror decision-making. Perspectives in law and psychology: The trial process, 2, Newman, J. (1993). Beyond reasonable doubt. New York University Law Review, 68, Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), Simon, D. (2004). A third view of the black box: Cognitive coherence in legal decision making. The University of Chicago Law Review, Simon, R. J. (1969). Judges translations of burdens of proof into statements of probability. Trial

13 Lawyer s Guide, 13, Simon, R. J., & Mahan, L. (1971). Quantifying burdens of proof. A view from the bench, the jury, and the classroom. Law and Society Review, Smith, V. L. (1991). Impact of pretrial instruction on jurors' information processing and decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), Stoffelmayr, E., & Diamond, S. S. (2000). The Conflict between Precision and Flexibility in Explaining Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 6, Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993). 508 U.S Thomson, W. C., Cowan, C. L., Ellsworth, P. C., & Harrington, J. C. (1984). Death penalty attitudes and conviction proneness: The translation of attitudes into verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 8, Tribe, L. H. (1971). Trial by mathematics: Precision and ritual in the legal process. Harvard Law Review, 84, United States v. Fatico (1979). 458 F. Supp. 388 (E.D.N.Y. 1978), aff'd, 603 F.2d Wells, G. L. (1992). Naked statistical evidence of liability: Is subjective probability enough? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, : : :

14 An Effect of the Jury Instruction Procedure on The Level of the Threshold for the Decision to Convict Yoori Seong Kwangbai Park Chungbuk National University The jury instruction consists of a set of legal rules and provides a guide for jurors to interpret evidence and the legal standard of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. Jury instructions are usually given after the closing arguments (at the end of the trial). But some research has shown that jury instruction provided before the evidence may have an impact on verdict. The present study was to determine the cognitive process caused by early instruction: (1) Early instruction may influence the verdict by upwardly adjusting the threshold for the decision to convict; (2) early instruction may influence the verdict through evaluations of the probative values of evidence; (3) Or both. 187 people older than 20 years of age participated in the on-line survey. With a trial scenario, one independent variable, Instruction Procedure, was manipulated in three levels: before-and-after the evidence procedure, after-only evidence procedure, and no-instruction procedure. The instruction procedure conditions did not show any difference in the evaluation of the probative values of evidence. On the other hand, before-and-after condition showed the lowest rate of guilty verdict and the highest probability of guilt for the defendant in the scenario. This latter result clearly suggested that the instruction procedure affects the decision threshold. Specifically, instruction provided twice, once before and again after the evidence, may upwardly shift the threshold for the decision to convict. Key words : jury instruction, proof beyond reasonable doubt, probability of commission, the threshold for the decision to convict, evaluation of evidence

27 2, 17-31, , * ,. K 1 2 2,.,,,.,.,.,,.,. :,,, : 2009/08/19 : 2009/09/09 : 2009/09/30 2007 * ( :

27 2, 17-31, , * ** ***,. K 1 2 2,.,,,.,.,.,,.,. :,,, : 2009/08/19 : 2009/09/09 : 2009/09/30 * 2007 ** *** ( : 27 2, 17-31, 2009. -, * ** ***,. K 1 2 2,.,,,.,.,.,,.,. :,,, : 2009/08/19 : 2009/09/09 : 2009/09/30 * 2007 ** *** (: dminkim@cau.ac.kr) 18 한국교육문제연구제 27 권 2 호, 2009. Ⅰ. (,,, 2004). (,, 2006).,,, (Myrick,