What’s Happening in the Jury Room?- Analyzing Shadow Jury Deliberations in Korea
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper looked into the jury deliberation process by examining shadow jury deliberations in 18 actual cases between November 2010 and July 2011 in Korea. Based on the direct observation and the content analysis of the videotaped deliberation, we examined four key areas in jury deliberation in order to gain insights and implications for the institutional design of the jury system: (1) the binding effect of the jury verdict, (2) the number of jurors, (3) the jurors’ deliberations regarding both conviction and sentencing, and (4) the judge’s intervention in jury deliberation. The results demonstrate that the shadow jurors in general actively participated in the deliberation process by speaking in turn, and were respectful toward other jurors in debate. The jury forepersons positively played their role by giving jurors equal chance to talk and managed the discussion well. Misunderstanding of law and the intermingling of facts relevant to conviction or sentencing were not as frequent as many people expected: when such problems occurred, they were most often corrected through the intervention of other jurors or judges. Most judges were helpful in jurors’ reaching a verdict in the jury room. Also there was no definitive relationship between the size of the jury and the quality of deliberation. On the other hand, the shadow jurors tended to state their initial positions early in the deliberation process without fully discussing the issues first. They oftentimes made arguments not based on evidence. In addition, jurors’ emotions affected decision-making in some instances. Although encouraging aspects as well as areas for improvement coexist, the overall quality of jury deliberation in Korea, as evidenced by this study, is positive. Over time, the Korean jury system is expected to be firmly established as a robust institution to increase democratic participation of the lay people and to enhance the credibility of the judiciary.
Abstract
This paper looked into the jury deliberation process by examining shadow jury deliberations in 18 actual cases between November 2010 and July 2011 in Korea. Based on the direct observation and the content analysis of the videotaped deliberation, we examined four key areas in jury deliberation in order to gain insights and implications for the institutional design of the jury system: (1) the binding effect of the jury verdict, (2) the number of jurors, (3) the jurors’ deliberations regarding both conviction and sentencing, and (4) the judge’s intervention in jury deliberation. The results demonstrate that the shadow jurors in general actively participated in the deliberation process by speaking in turn, and were respectful toward other jurors in debate. The jury forepersons positively played their role by giving jurors equal chance to talk and managed the discussion well. Misunderstanding of law and the intermingling of facts relevant to conviction or sentencing were not as frequent as many people expected: when such problems occurred, they were most often corrected through the intervention of other jurors or judges. Most judges were helpful in jurors’ reaching a verdict in the jury room. Also there was no definitive relationship between the size of the jury and the quality of deliberation. On the other hand, the shadow jurors tended to state their initial positions early in the deliberation process without fully discussing the issues first. They oftentimes made arguments not based on evidence. In addition, jurors’ emotions affected decision-making in some instances. Although encouraging aspects as well as areas for improvement coexist, the overall quality of jury deliberation in Korea, as evidenced by this study, is positive. Over time, the Korean jury system is expected to be firmly established as a robust institution to increase democratic participation of the lay people and to enhance the credibility of the judiciary.
참고문헌 (41)
- Jae-Hyup Lee, "Getting Citizens Involved: Civil Participation in Judicial Decision-Making in Korea", E. Asia L. Rev, 4(177), pp.182~197 (2009)
- Jae-Hyup Lee, "Korean Jury Trial: Has the New System Brought About Changes?", Asian-Pacific L. & Pol’y J, 12, pp.58~ (2010)
- Norman J. Finkel, "Commonsense Justice: Jurors’ Notions of the Law" (1995)
- Jongsun Kang, "Gukmin chamyeo jaepanui heyonhwanggwa gwaje", National Court Administration (2013)
- Byung-Soo Kim, "Gukminchamyeojaepanui jungganpyeongga", Hyeongsaj eongchaekyeongu, 83, pp.311~ (2010)
- In Sup Han, "Hangukui baesimwonjaepan", Seouldaehak gyo beophak, 50, pp.681~704 (2009)
- In Sup Han, "Gukminui sabeopchamyeo" (2010)
- 정진경, "「국민의 형사재판 참여에 관한 법률」에 따른 배심원재판의 유의점", 저스티스, 100(100), pp.97~126 (2007), 한국법학원
- Sangjoon Kim, "Judge-Jury Agreement in Criminal Cases: The First Three years of the Korean Jury System", J. Emp. L. St, 10, pp.35~42 (2013)
- John Gastil, "The Jury and Democracy: How Jury Deliberation Promotes Civic Engagement and Political Participa tion 101" (2010)
- Shari Diamond, "A Courtroom Experiment on Juror Selection and Decision-Making", Personal ity and So. Psychol. Bull, 1, pp.276~ (1974)
- Donald E. Vinson, "The Shadow Jury: An Experiment in Litigation Science", A.B.A. J, 68, pp.1242~ (1982)
- Young Sol Kwon, "Baesimje, Chamsimjeui doipnoneuiwa geu heonbeopjeokhapseong munje", Beopgwa sahoe, 26, pp.97~ (2004)
- Sung Gi Hwang, "Hangukeseoeui chamsimjewa baesimjeeui heonbeopjeokhapseong", Beopgwa sahoe, 26, pp.123~ (2004)
- Misuk Park, "Gukminchamyeojaepanui sihaengseonggwawa hyanghugwaje", Hyeongsaj eongchaekyeongu, 82, pp.135~ (2010)
- Sang Hoon Han, "Gukminchamyeojaepaneseo baesimwon pyeonggyeolui gisokjeok hyoryeoke gwanhan geomto", Hyeongsaj eongchaek, 24, pp.9~ (2012)
- 문일환, "국민참여재판 배심원에 대한 실무적 접근 - 배심원 선정, 평결, 양형을 중심으로 -", 저스티스, 135, pp.173~200 (2013), 한국법학원
- 박광배, "가상적인 재판 쟁점에서의 현역판사의 판단과 모의배심의 집단판단에 대한 인지적 방략의 효과", 한국심리학회지: 문화 및 사회문제, 11(1), pp.59~84 (2005), 한국문화및사회문제심리학회
- Kwang P. Park, "Hyeongsabaesim pyeonguieseoui sahoijeok dongjowa injijeok jeonhyang: hanguk choichoui siminbaesim mouijaepanui pyeonguie daehan naeyongbunseok", Hanguksimrihak hoiji sahoi mit seonggyeok, 19, pp.1~6 (2005)
- Erin York Cornwell, "Representation through Participation: A Multilevel Analysis of Jury Deliberations", Law & Soc’y Rev, 45, pp.667~ (2011)
- Dennis J. Devine, "Deliberation Quality: A Preliminary Examination in Criminal Juries", Emp. L. Stud, 4, pp.273~280 (2007)
- Kwangbai Park, "Baesimpyeonguiui yangjeok teukseongul gyerangjeokuro gisulhaneun segaji jisu", Hanguksimrihak hoiji sahoi mit seonggyeok, 11, pp.1~ (2006)
- Neil Vidmar, "Juries and expert evidence", Brook. L. Rev, 66, pp.158~ (2001)
- Jong-Dae Kim, "Haprijeok uisimui yeoji eopneun jeungmyeong gijune daehan baesimwonui ihaedo yeongu", Beophak yeongu, 21, pp.1~ (2011)
- Shari Diamond, "Inside the Jury Room: Evaluating Juror Discussions during Trial", Judicature, 87, pp.54~ (2003)
- Erin York, "Status on Trial: Social Characteristics and Influence in the Jury Room", Soc. Forces, 85, pp.455~ (2006)
- A Bavelas, "Experiments on the Alteration of Group Structure", J. Experimental Soc. Psychol, 1, pp.55~59 (1965)
- Michael Antonio, "Race and the Civil Jury: How Does a Juror’s Race Shape the Jury Experience?, In Psychology in the Courts: International Advances in Knowl edge" (2001)
- David Michael Ryfe, "The Practice of Deliberative Democracy: A Study of 16 Deliberative Organizations", Pol. Comm, 19, pp.359~360 (2002)
- Todd E. Pettys, "Emotional Juror", Fordham L. Rev, 76, pp.1609~1639 (2007)
- Michael E. Saks, "The Smaller the Jury the Great the Unpredictability", Judicature, 79, pp.263~ (1996)
- Michael Saks, "A Meta-analysis of the effects of jury size", Law and Hum. Behav, 21, pp.451~ (1997)
- Horowitz, "The Effects of Jury Size, Evidence Complexity and Note Taking on Jury Process and Performance in a Civil Trial", J. Appl . Psychol, 87, pp.121~ (2002)
- Sang Hoon Han, "Gukminui hyeongsajaepanchamyeojedo ipbeopnonui", Beopgwa Sahoe, 30, pp.303~313
- 한상훈, "국민참여재판제도의 정착방안", 저스티스, 106(106), pp.483~534 (2008), 한국법학원
- Hyungkwan Park, "Baesimwon yanghyeonge gwanhan jaengjeom geomto", Hyeongsaj eongchaekyeongu, 23, pp.42~63 (2012)
- Eun Mo Lee, "Hyeonhaeng gukminchamyeojaepanjedoui naeyonggwa munjejeom: ilbonui jaepanwonjedowaui bigyoreul jungsimuro", Beophak nonchong, 26, pp.405~ (2009)
- 이재협, "배심제 평의의 합리성에 관한 연구 - 국민참여재판에서의 그림자 배심 평의 분석", 저스티스, 139, pp.208~249 (2013), 한국법학원
- Jisuk Woo, "Jaepanui gongjeongseonge daehan insige yeonghyangul michinun yoine daehan yeongu", Seouldaehak gyo Beophak, 54, pp.261~ (2013)