실무 자백 사건들을 활용한 검찰 심리생리검사의 타당성 연구
The Validity of Psychophysiological Detection of Deception(PDD) Tests in Prosecutorial Data Using Confession Cases
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
2016년부터 2017년까지 2년간 검찰에서 실시한 심리생리검사 사건들 중 수사 및 재판 과정에서 피고인이 자백한 91건을 확인하여 피고인 자백 내용과 심리생리검사 결과와의 일치 여부를 확인하였다. 검찰에서 시행 중인 의사 결정 과정에 따른 정확성을 계산해 보았을 때, 모든 단계에서 90%가 넘는 정확률을 보였고, 이는 컴퓨터 자동채점 및 분석 프로그램이 기록한 정확성이나 미국 폴리그래프 협회에서 유사한 기법을 통해 검사하였을 때 보고했던 정확성보다 높은 수준이었다. 신호탐지론을 통해 민감도(d’)와 반응 기준(c)을 계산한 결과, 담당 검사관의 최초의견부터 대검찰청 소속 분석관 검토의견 및 최종의견에 이르기까지 3을 넘는 민감도를 확인할 수 있었고, 이는 비교대상으로 삼은 컴퓨터 자동채점 프로그램이나, 이전 연구 결과에서 보고한 값보다 더 큰 결과였다. 반응 기준의 경우, 대검소속 검사관들은 상대적으로 보수적인 판단 기준을 가지고 의사 결정을 수행하였으나, 컴퓨터 자동채점 프로그램의 경우 보다 더 관대한 판단 기준으로 의사 결정을 하는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 또한 검사관들의 경우, 판단불능률은 더 높았으나 컴퓨터 자동채점이 보여준 높은 오경보율 등의 오류가 더 작았던 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 본 연구는 비록 자백 연구의 특성 상 실제보다 정확성이 과장되어 나타날 가능성이 존재할 지라도, 실제 사례들을 통해 검찰에서 수행하는 심리생리검사의 성능 및 특성을 파악할 수 있는 실증적인 자료를 제공한다는 데 의의를 가진다.
Abstract
Between 2016 and 2017, a study examined 91 cases in which defendants confessed during the investigation and trial processes, verifying the consistency between these confessions and the results of psychophysiological detection of deception(PDD) tests conducted by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office of the Republic of Korea(SPO). The accuracy during all decision-making stages conducted by the SPO exceeded 90%, surpassing the accuracy recorded by automated scoring and analysis programs and that reported by the American Polygraph Association using similar techniques. Signal detection theory was applied to calculate sensitivity (d') and decision criterion (c), revealing that the sensitivity at each decision-making stage-from the examiner's initial opinion to the review opinion by SPO examiners and the final opinion- exceeded 3. This sensitivity was higher than that recorded by automated scoring programs or in previous research findings. In terms of decision criteria (c), SPO examiners used relatively conservative criteria in decision-making, whereas the automated scoring program made decisions based on more liberal criteria. Additionally, in the case of the examiners, although the rate of inconclusive judgments was higher, it was observed that errors such as the high false alarm rates seen in the automated scoring program were smaller. This study, despite the possibility that the accuracy may be overstated due to the nature of confession-based research, provides empirical data based on actual cases to better understand the performance and characteristics of PDD tests conducted by SPO.
참고문헌 (42)
- 김석찬, "폴리그래프 검사 요인에 따른 검찰 처분 및 판결 일치도 연구 : 검찰청 폴리그래프 실증 연구", 한국심리학회지 : 법, 6(1), pp.13~31 (2015)
- 방철, "심리생리검사 결과의 증거능력에관한 소고", 중앙법학, 25(1), pp.147~170 (2023)
- 양동철, "진술서, 진술녹취서의 증거능력", 경희법학, 48(1), pp.433~468 (2013)
- 정재영, "상반된 주장에 대한 폴리그래프 검사의 판별 정확성", 한국심리학회지 : 사회및성격, 24(1), pp.1~10 (2010)
- Bond, C. F., "Accuracy of deception judgements", Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, pp.214~234 (2006)[DOI]
- Bull, R., "Can training enhance the detection of deception?", Credibility assessment, pp.83~99 (1989)[DOI]
- DePaulo, B. M., "Telling lies", Journal of personality and social psychology, 37(10), pp.1713~ (1979)[DOI]
- Dutton, D., "Guide for performing the objective scoring system", Polygraph, 29(2), pp.177~184 (2000)
- Elaad, E., "Detection of guilty knowledge in real-life criminal investigation", Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, pp.521~529 (1990)[DOI]
- Garrett BL., "Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong" (2011), Harvard Univ. Press
- Ginton, A., "A method for evaluating the use of the polygraph in a real-life situation", Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, pp.131~137 (1982)[DOI]
- Gordon, N., "Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated Polygraph Techniques", Polygraph, 40(4), pp.194~305 (2011)
- Green, D., "Signal detection theory and psychophysics" (1966), Wiley
- Grubin, D., "The polygraph and forensic psychiatry", Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 38(4), pp.446~451 (2010)
- Honts, C. R., "Psychophysiological detection of deception", Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3(3), pp.77~82 (1994)[DOI]
- Iacono, W. G., "Accuracy of polygraph techniques : Problems using confessions to determine ground truth", Physiology &Behavior, 95(1-2), pp.24~26 (2008)[DOI]
- Kassin, S. M., ""I’m innocent!" : Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room", Law and Human Behavior, 23, pp.499~516 (1999)[DOI]
- Kircher, J. C., "Human versus computerized evaluations of polygraph data in a laboratory setting", Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, pp.291~302 (1988)[DOI]
- Kircher, J. C., "Generalizability of mock crime laboratory studies of the control question polygraph technique", Psychophysiology, 25, pp.462~463 (1988)
- Krapohl, D., "Short Report : An update for the Objective Scoring System", Polygraph, 31, pp.298~302 (2002)
- Krapohl, D., "An objective method for manually scoring polygraph data", Polygraph, 28, pp.209~222 (1999)
- Lord, R. G., "Accuracy in behavioral measurement : An alternative definition based on raters' cognitive schema and signal detection theory", Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), pp.66~ (1985)[DOI]
- Lynn, S. K., ""Utilizing"signal detection theory", Psychological science, 25(9), pp.1663~1673 (2014)[DOI]
- Macmillan, N. A., "Detection theory: A user’s guide" (2005), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
- Mangan, D. J., "A field study on the validity of the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique", Physiology & behavior, 95(1-2), pp.17~23 (2008)[DOI]
- National Research Council, "The polygraph and lie detection" (2003), National Academies Press
- Nelson, R., "Using the empirical scoring system", Polygraph, 40(2), pp.67~78 (2011)
- Nelson, R., "Monte Carlo Study of Criterion Validity of Backster You-Phase Examinations", Polygraph, 41(1), pp.44~53 (2012)
- Nelson, R., "Blind scoring of confirmed federal You-Phase examinations by experienced and inexperienced examiners : Criterion validity with the Empirical Scoring System and the seven-position model", Polygraph, 45(1) (2016)
- Nelson, R., "Monte Carlo study of criterion validity of the directed lie screening test using the Empirical Scoring System and the Objective Scoring System version 3", Polygraph, 41(3), pp.144~155 (2012)
- Nelson, R., "Brute force comparison : A Monte Carlo study of the Objective Scoring System version 3(OSS-3)and human polygraph scorers", Polygraph, 37(3), pp.185~215 (2008)
- Pollina, D. A., "Comparison of polygraph data obtained from individuals involved in mock crimes and actual criminal investigations", Journal of applied psychology, 89(6), pp.1099~ (2004)[DOI]
- Senter, S. M., "Modified general question test decision rule exploration", Polygraph, 32(4), pp.251~263 (2003)
- Thompson, M. B., "The nature of expertise in fingerprint matching : Experts can do a lot with a little", PloS one, 9(12), pp.e114759~ (2014)[DOI]
- Thompson, M. B., "Expertise in fingerprint identification", Journal of forensic sciences, 58(6), pp.1519~1530 (2013)[DOI]
- Vrij, A., "The impact of information and setting on detection of deception by police detectives", Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, pp.117~136 (1994)[DOI]
- Vrij, A., "Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and implications for professional practice" (2000), Wiley
- Vrij, A., "Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities" (2008), John Wiley & Sons
- Wagner, H. L., "On measuring performance in category judgment studies of nonverbal behavior", Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 17(1), pp.3~28 (1993)[DOI]
- Wickens, T. D., "Maximum-likelihood estimation of a multivariate Gaussian rating model with excluded data", Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 36, pp.213~234 (1991)[DOI]
- Zloteanu, M., "A tutorial for deception detection analysis or: How I learned to stop aggregating veracity judgments and embraced signal detection theory mixed models", Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, pp.1~25 (2024)[DOI]
- Zuckerman, M., "Nonverbal strategies for decoding deception", Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6, pp.171~187 (1982)[DOI]