반대신문 시 진술조력인의 개입과 아동 피해자 진술의 일관성이 모의배심원의 피해자 진술신빙성 판단에 미치는 영향
Effects of intermediary and statement inconsistency of child witness during cross-examination on mock juror’s judgment of statement credibility
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
최근 헌법재판소에서는 영상녹화 CD에 수록된 미성년 성폭력 범죄피해자의 진술을 증거로 사용할 수 있도록 한 규정에 대해 위헌 결정을 내렸다. 아동 피해자가 반대신문에 당사자로 직접 참여해야 하는 상황에 놓임에 따라 법정 내 아동의 의사소통 과정을 조력하는 진술조력인 역할의 필요성이 증대되었다. 이에 본 연구는 반대신문 내 진술조력인의 개입이 취약한 증인에 대한 모의배심원의 인식에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지에 관해 살펴보고자 하였다. 기대위반이론의 관점에서 변호인이 아동에게 부적절한 질문을 하였을 때 진술조력인이 개입하였음에도 진술이 비일관적인 경우 모의배심원이 아동의 진술신빙성을 낮게 평가할 것이라는 가설을 설정하였다. 이를 검증하기 위하여 만 20세 이상 성인 186명을 대상으로 진술일관성과 진술조력인 개입 여부가 조작된 재판 시나리오를 보여준 후 아동 피해자의 진술신빙성에 대해 판단하도록 하였다. 연구 결과, 모의배심원은 아동 피해자의 진술이 일관적인 경우보다 비일관적인 경우 진술신빙성을 더 낮게 판단하였다. 진술조력인의 개입은 아동의 불안 정서 수준에 대한 인식에 영향을 미치지 않았으며, 진술조력인의 영향에 대한 기대 위반의 결과도 나타나지 않았다. 이러한 결과를 바탕으로 아동 대상 반대신문의 문제점과 진술조력인의 역할에 관한 교육의 필요성에 대해 논의하였다.
Abstract
Recently, the Korean Constitutional Court ruled that the provisions allowing video-recorded statements of underage sexual abuse victims as evidence were unconstitutional. As child victims have to participate in the cross-examination, the role of intermediaries might be increased to aid child witnesses’ communication in court. Therefore, this study aims to examine how an intermediary’s intervention affects mock jurors’ perception of statement credibility. Based on Expectancy Violation Theory, we hypothesized that when a lawyer asks inappropriate questions to a child witness during cross-examination, if the child’s statement is inconsistent despite the intervention of an intermediary, mock jurors would perceive the child as less credible. In a 2(intermediary present vs. not present) x 2(statement consistent vs. inconsistent) between-subjects experiment, 186 adult participants read one of the four sexual abuse case scenarios and then judged the credibility of a child witness. As a result, the credibility was judged lower when the child’s statements were inconsistent than when they were consistent. The intervention of the intermediary did not affect the mock juror’s perception of the child’s anxiety level, and there was no expectancy violation effect by the intermediary. Based on these results, the problems of child witness cross-examination and the need for a better understanding of the intermediary’s role were discussed.
참고문헌 (34)
- 김정혜, "진술조력인의 의의와 역할 - 성폭력 범죄 피해 장애인을 중심으로 -", 고려법학, (69), pp.33~88 (2013), 법학연구원
- 김지영, "장애인복지법상 진술조력인 제도의 현황과 개선방안", 사회법연구, (48), pp.625~660 (2022), 한국사회법학회
- 도중진, "범죄피해자 진술조력인제도의 실효화방안", 법학연구, 19(2), pp.33~60 (2016), 법학연구소
- 안재경, "시간의 경과가 아동진술에 미치는 영향:미성년 성폭력 피해자 영상진술 조항 위헌결정에 대한 법심리학적 고찰", 형사정책연구, 33(2), pp.127~161 (2022), 한국형사법무정책연구원
- 정현미, "성폭력범죄 피해 아동․장애인을 위한 진술조력인제도", 이화젠더법학, 4(1), pp.73~95 (2012)
- 홍영기, "반대신문권 보장: 전문법칙의 근거", 고려법학, (75), pp.1~43 (2014), 법학연구원
- Berman, G. L., "Effects of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony on mock-juror decision making", Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), pp.170~177 (1996)
- Berman, G. L., "Effects of inconsistent eyewitness statements on mock-jurors’ evaluations of the eyewitness, perceptions of defendant culpability and verdicts", Law and Human Behavior, 19(1), pp.79~88 (1995)
- Burgoon, J. K., "Nonverbal expectancy violations : Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors", Communications Monographs, 55(1), pp.58~79 (1988)
- Cashmore, J., "Child sexual assault trials : A survey of juror perceptions", Crime and Justice Bulletin, 102(1), pp.1~20 (2006)
- Coburn, P. I., "Cross-examination may be more detrimental to repeated-event children than single-event children", Memory, 30(6), pp.715~724 (2022)
- Collins, K., "The impact of the registered intermediary on adults’ perceptions of child witnesses : Evidence from a mock cross examination", European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 23(2), pp.211~225 (2017)
- Cossins, A., "Cross-examination in child sexual assault trials: Evidentiary safeguard or an opportunity to confuse?", Melbourne University Law Review, 33(1), pp.68~104 (2009)
- The experiences of child complainants of sexual abuse in the criminal justice system, "Eastwood, C.", Criminology Research Council, 156~ (2002)
- Granhag, P. A., "Effects of preconceptions on deception detection and new answers to why lie-catchers often fail", Crime and Law, 6(3), pp.197~218 (2000)
- Hanna, K., "Questioning child witnesses in New Zealand’s criminal justice system: Is cross- examination fair?", Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 19(4), pp.530~546 (2012)
- Krähenbühl, S., "‘Does the jury really need to hear it all?’: The effect of evidence presentation practice on jury assessment of children’s eyewitness testimony", Psychology, Crime & Law, 18(9), pp.847~858 (2012)
- Krähenbühl, S., "Mock jurors’ perceptions of a child witness: the impact of the presence and", or intervention of a registered intermediary during cross-examination, 2019, pp.25(7), 713~728
- Lamb, M. E., "Handbook of child psychology and developmental science", pp.464~512 (2015), Wiley
- Leippe, M. R., "Reactions to child (versus adult) eyewitnesses", Law and Human Behavior, 13(2), pp.103~132 (1989)
- McAuliff, B. D., "Do jurors get what they expect? Traditional versus alternative forms of children’s testimony", Psychology, Crime & Law, 18(1), pp.27~47 (2012)
- McCauley, M. R., "When will a child be believed? The impact of the victim’s age and juror’s gender on children’s credibility and verdict in a sexual-abuse case", Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(4), pp.523~539 (2001)
- Ministry of Justice, "Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings", Ministry of Justice, ~ (2011)
- Pichler, A. S., "Inconsistencies in complainant’s accounts of child sexual abuse arising in their cross-examination. Psychology", Psychology, Crime & Law, 27(4), pp.341~356 (2021)
- Plotnikoff, J., "The ‘Go-Between’: evaluation of intermediary pathfinder projects" (2007), Lexicon Limited
- Ridley, A. M., "Interviews, intermediaries and interventions : Mock-jurors’, police officers’ and barristers’ perceptions of a child witness interview", Investigative Interviewing : Research and Practice, 7(1), pp.21~35 (2015)
- Righarts, S., "Young children’s responses to cross- examination style questioning: The effects of delay and subsequent questioning", Psychology, Crime & Law, 21(3), pp.274~296 (2015)
- Smethurst, A., "Mock Jury Perceptions of Vulnerable Defendants Assisted in Court by Intermedaries-Are Juror’s Expectations Violated?", Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 15(1), pp.23~40 (2019)
- Szojka, Z. A., "Challenging the credibility of alleged victims of child sexual abuse in Scottish courts", Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(2), pp.200~210 (2017)
- Tabak, S. J., "Mock jury attitudes towards credibility, age, and guilt in a fictional child sexual assault scenario", Australian Journal of Psychology, 66(1), pp.47~55 (2014)
- Waterman, A. H., "Do children try to answer nonsensical questions?", British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18(2), pp.211~225 (2000)
- Yarmey, A. D., "Evaluating witness evidence", pp.13~40 (1983), Wiley
- Zajac, R., "Asked and answered: Questioning children in the courtroom", Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 10(1), pp.199~209 (2003)
- Zajac, R., "Disorder in the courtroom? Child witnesses under cross-examination", Developmental Review, 32(3), pp.181~204 (2012)