양형기준 밖의 양형요인으로서 법조인 연구: 살인범죄군을 중심으로
Sentencing factors outside the sentencing guidelines: effect of the courtroom players on homicide cases
0
조회
0
다운로드
9
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
본 연구는 양형기준의 설명력이 낮다는 기존의 경험적 검증 연구을 기반으로 양형에 영향을 미치는 양형기준 밖의 요인을 찾아내는 것을 주요 목적으로 하였다. 양형기준 속의 양형요인에 대한 평가는 과거에 이미 진행되었기에 본 연구는 양형기준에서 제시하고 있지 않는 사회적 요인들을 찾아 그 중 법조인의 요인에 집중하였다. 구체적으로는 법조인의 영향력을 면밀히 관찰하기 위하여 재판에 참여하는 법정행위자(법관, 검사, 변호인)의 개별적인 특징(성별, 연수원 기수)과 동질성(같은 학교 출신, 연수원 동기여부)을 동시에 살폈다. 이러한 논의의 이론적 배경으로는 범죄학에서 양형편차를 논하는 초점적 관심이론을 주요 틀로 삼았고, 심리학의 정박효과와 후광효과 그리고 소박한 현실주의를 통해 법관의 초점적 관심이 어떠한 심리적 매커니즘을 통해 양형편차를 유발하는지 뒷받침하여 설명하였다. 본 연구는 2009년 양형기준이 적용된 이후 1심에서 유죄판결을 받은 살인범죄군 사건을 분석대상으로 삼았다. 분석 결과 살인사건의 경우 국선 변호인, 높은 경력의 검사, 어린 가해자, 그리고 피해자가 여성인 경우 그렇지 않은 상황에 비해 형량이 증가하는 경향을 발견하였다. 법정행위자의 동질성 측면에서는 재판장과 검사가 동일한 학교 출신일 경우 오히려 형량은 증가하였다. 추가적으로 살인미수의 경우 집행유예 선고여부에 영향을 미치는 요인들을 검증하였고 그 결과 사선 변호인, 그리고 가해자가 여성인 경우 집행유예 선고 가능성이 높아짐을 확인하였다. 더욱 구체적인 결과와 정책적 함의는 본문을 통해 살펴보기로 한다.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to find out factors outside sentencing guidelines. Since the evaluation of sentencing factors in sentencing guidelines has already been carried out in the past, this study focused on the factors of courtroom players in search of social factors that are not presented in sentencing guidelines. More specifically, in order to closely observe the influence of the courtroom players(judge, prosecutor, attorney), this paper examined the individual characteristics(gender, the number of trainees) and homogeneity (whether they were from the same university, same year entrance of the training institute) of courtroom players participated in the trial. The theoretical background of this study was focal concern theory in criminology and anchoring effect, native realism and halo effect in psychology. The used data were 1421 homicide cases which were applied sentencing guidelines from 2009. As a result of linear regression analysis, it was found that the length of sentence increased in case of public attorney, high career prosecutor, young offender, and female victim. In terms of homogeneity of the courtroom players, the length of sentence was increased when the judge and the prosecutor were graduated from the same university. In the case of attempted murder, the factors suspension of execution were examined using logistic regression, and it was confirmed that the likelihood of the decision of suspension of execution was increased when the private attorney was hired or being female defendants. More detailed results and policy implications will be discussed in the main body.
참고문헌 (63)
- 김청택, "법정의사결정에서의 판사들의 인지편향", 서울대학교 법학, 51(4), pp.317~345 (2010), 법학연구소
- 박미랑, "이중평가금지의 원칙으로 살펴본 절도범죄 양형기준 속의 형의 감경과 가중", 형사정책, 27(2), pp.37~62 (2015), 한국형사정책학회[DOI]
- 박미랑, "법원 조직 특성에 따른 정의? - 살인미수 양형선고에 있어서 법원 조직 특성의 영향력 연구 -", 한국범죄학, 11(1), pp.169~198 (2017), 대한범죄학회
- 박미랑, "뇌물수수죄를 중심으로 살펴 본 법원의 조직효과성과 법관의 양형 결정", 한국범죄학, 11(3), pp.33~53 (2017), 대한범죄학회
- 박미랑, "살인 범죄 양형 편차, 누구의 영향력인가?: 사건 당사자와 법정행위자 집단, 그리고 법원조직 특성의 영향력 비교", 형사법의 신동향, (55), pp.238~282 (2017), 대검찰청[DOI]
- 박재현, "배심제와 법심리학" (2010), 오래
- 박철현, "성에 따른 양형의 편차: 도주차량범죄의 사례", 범죄와 비행, 1, pp.97~119 (2011)
- 서봉규, "현행 양형기준의 문제점과 개선방안", 홍익법학, 11(2), pp.33~67 (2010), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 양형위원회, "양형기준", ~ (2014)
- 양형기준 시행현황분석 및 개선방안에 관한연구: 통계적 분석을 중심으로, "이민식", 대검찰청, ~ (2010)
- 이민식, "살인범들의 양형에 영향을 미치는 요인", 형사정책연구, 17(4), pp.183~218 (2006), 한국형사법무정책연구원
- 양형기준 시행현황 분석 및 개선방안에 관한 연구: 통계적 분석을 중심으로, "이민식", 대검찰청, ~ (2010)
- 양형기준 시행현황 분석 및 개선방안에 관한 연구 II: 통계적 분석을 중심으로, "이민식", 대검찰청, ~ (2011)
- 양형기준 시행현황 분석 및 개선방안에 관한 연구 III: 통계적 분석을 중심으로, "이민식", 대검찰청, ~ (2012)
- 이지은, "판사와 변호인 간 사회적 자본이 판결에 미치는 영향 연구", 형사정책, 26(3), pp.135~162 (2014), 한국형사정책학회[DOI]
- 한규석, "사회심리학의 이해" (2002), 학지사
- 형사정책과 사법제도에 관한 연구-사법판단에서 실체적 진실과 불확실성에 대한 인식, "홍영오", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2013)
- Casper, J., "American Criminal Justice: The defendant’s perspective" (1972), Prentice Hall
- Cervone, D., "Anchoring, efficacy, and action: The influence of judgmental heuristic on self-efficacy judgments and behavior", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, pp.492~501 (1986)
- Champion, D., "private counsels and public defenders: A look at weak cases, prior records, and leniency in plea bargaining", Journal of Criminal Justice, 17, pp.253~263 (1989)
- Chapman, G., "The limit of anchoring", Journal of behavioral decision making, 7(4), pp.223~242 (1994)
- Chapman, G. B., "The more you ask for, the more you get: Anchoring in personal injury verdicts", Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, pp.519~540 (1996)
- Chapman, G. B., "Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, pp.115~153 (1999)
- Chertkoff, j. M., "Opening offer and frequency of concession as bargaining strategies", Journal of personality and social psychology, 7(2), pp.181~185 (1967)
- Cohen, T., "Whois better at defending criminals? Does type of defense attorney matter in terms of producing favorable case outcomes", Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25(1), pp.29~58 (2014)
- Colvin, A., "An empirical study of employment arbitration: cases and outcomes and processes", Journal of empirical Legal Studies, 8, pp.1~23 (2011)
- Feld, B., "Justice by geography: urban, suburban, and rural variation in juvenile justice administration", The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 82(1), pp.156~210 (1991)
- Feeney F., "Public defenders, assigned counsel, retained counsel: Does type of criminal defense counsel matter?", Rutgers Law Journal, 22, pp.361~456 (1991)
- Greene, E., "The influence of prior record evidence on juror decision making", Law and Human Behavior, 19(1), pp.67~78 (1995)
- Guthrie, C., "Inside the judicial mind", Cornell Law Reviews, 86, pp.777~830 (2001)
- Hanson, R., "Indigent defenders: get the job done and done well" (1992), nation center for state courts
- Hagan, J., "Criminal justice in rural and urban communities: A study of bureaucratization of justice", Social Forces, 55, pp.597~612 (1977)
- Defense counsel in criminal cases, "Harlow, C. W.", U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics, ~ (2000)
- Hartely, R., "Do you get what you pay for? type of counsel and its effect on criminal court outcomes", Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(5), pp.1063~1070 (2010)
- Haynes, H., "Courtroom workgroups and sentencing: the effect of similarity, proximity, and stability", Crime and Delinquency, 56, pp.26~161 (2010)
- Huang, K., "Does the type of criminal defense counsel affect case outcome? :A natural experiment in Taiwan", International Review of Law and Economics, 30, pp.113~127 (2010)
- Johnson, B., "The multilevel context of criminal sentencing: Integrating judge-and country-level influences", Criminology, 44, pp.259~298 (2006)
- Johnson, J, "Does repeat play elicit cooperation? Evidence from federal civil litigation", Journal of Legal Studies, 31, pp.39~60 (2002)
- Kanter, R., "Men and Women of the Cooperation" (1977), Basic Books
- King, R., "Demography of the legal profession and racial disparities in sentencing", Law and Society, 44(1), pp.1~32 (2010)
- Korobkin, R., "Opening offer and out-of court settlement: A little moderation may not go a long way", Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 10(1), pp.1~22 (1994)
- Kramer, G. P., "Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies and jury bias", Law and Human Behavior, 14(5), pp.409~438 (1990)
- Levin, M., "Urban politics and the criminal courts" (1977), University of Chicago Press
- Lord, C. G., "biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effect of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence", Journal of personality and social psychology, 37(11), pp.2098~2109 (1979)
- Nisbett, R. E., "The halo effect: evidence for unconscious alternation of judgement", Journal of personality and social psychology, 35(4), pp.250~256 (1977)
- Oaks, D., "Lawyers for the poor, In the scales of justice" (1970), Aldine
- Penrod, S., "Assessing the impact of pretrial publicity on jury decision-making", International journal of psychology, 27, pp.3~4 (1992)
- Plus, S., "The psychology of judgement and decision making" (1993), McGraw Hill
- Pronin, E., "You don't know me, but I know you: The illusion of asymmetric insight", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), pp.639~656 (2001)
- Pronin, E., "the bias blind spot: perceptions of bias in self versus others", Personality and social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), pp.369~381 (2002)
- Shierholz, H., "Free of charge: The take-up and consequences of indigent criminal defense services", University of Michigan, ~ (2005)
- Snyder, M., "Behavioral confirmation in social interaction: From social perception to social reality", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, pp.148~162 (1978)
- Snyder, M., "Hypothesis-testing processes in social interaction", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, pp.1202~1212 (1978)
- Spohn, C., "Policies, Processes and Decision of the Criminal Justice System" (2000), U.S. Department of Justice
- Steffensmeier, D., "The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male", Criminology, 36(4), pp.763~797 (1998)
- Strack, F., "Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), pp.437~446 (1997)
- Tversky, A., "Judgement under uncertainty heuristic and biases", Science, 185, pp.1124~1131 (1974)
- Ulmer, J., "Court communities under sentencing guidelines: Dilemmas of Formal Rationality and sentencing Disparity", Criminology, 34, pp.399~ (1996)
- Ulmer, J., "Trial penalties in federal sentencing: Extra-guidelines factors and district variation", Justice Quarterly, 27, pp.560~592 (2010)
- Ulmer, J., "Court communities under sentencing guidelines: Dilemmas of Formal Rationality and sentencing Disparity", Criminology, 34, pp.383~408 (1996)
- Wansink, B., "an anchoring and adjustment model of purchase quantity decisions", Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), pp.71~81 (1998)
- Wason, P. C., "on the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task", Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 12, pp.129~140 (1960)
- Wice, P., "Chaos in the courtroom: The inner workings of the urban municipal courts" (1985), Prager