형법상 ‘과실’판단시 사후과잉확신편향의 영향력에 관한 실증적 연구
The effect of hindsight bias in negligence judgements in criminal cases
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
사후과잉 확신편향이란 사람들이 결과를 알고 있는 경우 그 전부터 그 결과를 마치 알고 있었다고 과장하는 경향을 의미한다. 사후과잉확신편향에 관한 연구는 스포츠, 정치, 역사, 의학 등 다양한 분야에서 이루어져 왔다. 형사법적 맥락에서 사후과잉인지편향이 문제가 되는 이유는 책임주의 원칙을 훼손하고 유죄편향성을 가져와 무죄추정의 원칙에도 위배되기 때문이다. 이러한 이유로 외국에서는 법적 맥락에서의 사후과잉확신편향에 대한 연구가 활발하게 이루어져 왔으나, 국내에서는 아직까지 이에 대한 관심이 저조한 실정이다. 이에 대한 연구는 형사법의 영역에서 사후과잉확신편향이 영향을 미친다는 단순한 학문적 검증을 넘어, 국민참여재판의 실시, 국민참여 기소심사제의 도입 논의 등 일반시민들의 법적의사결정 참여가 확대되고 있는 시기에 실무적으로 가지는 의미도 크다. 이러한 관점에서 본 연구는 형법상 과실범과 관련하여 사후과잉확신편향이 발생하는지, 발생한다면 법률가와 일반인 간 차이는 있는지를 살펴보고자 하였다. 이를 확인하기 위해 법전공자 185명(국내 소재 법학전문대학원 재학생)과 비전공자 149명(법대생 제외한 일반 대학교 학부생) 총 334명을 대상으로, 발생한 결과에 따라 과실 판단이 달라지는지에 관한 실험을 진행하였다. 이 실험결과에 따르면 법전공자의 경우 결과가 무엇이든 간에 행위 자체에 대한 판단은 달라지지 않았으나, 비전공자의 경우 결과에 따라 과실 여부가 달라진다고 판단하는 사후과잉확신편향이 나타나고 있었다. 이처럼 비전공자가 사후과잉확신편향에 더욱 취약하다는 것은, 비전공자의 경우 법전공자보다‘법익침해의 결과’를 판단의 기준으로 삼는 비율이 높다는 질적 분석을 통해서도 재확인할 수 있었다. 본 연구는 형법상 과실판단을 함에 있어 사후과잉확신편향이 일반시민들의 법적 의사결정에 영향을 미친다는 결과를 보여줌으로써 수사 및 재판에서 인지편향의 위험성에 대한 지속적인 연구 필요성을 제시하고 있다.
Abstract
Once individuals learn the outcomes of events, they tend to overestimate the ability with which they could have predicted the event(hindsight bias). Meta-analyses have shown that the hindsight bias is a robust effect, is applicable in a myriad of circumstances, and is difficult to debias. Regarding negligence judgments, legal decision makers must decide if defendants’ actions were negligent by determining whether a defendant should have foreseen the potential for harm. However, legal decision makers make these judgments with outcome knowledge that harm did occur, introducing the hindsight bias. The reason why hindsight bias is specially dangerous in negligence judgments is that it means guilty-biased judgments, which is contrary to the constitution, the presumption of innocence. This study investigates whether hindsight bias affect legal decision making in negligence judgments in criminal cases in the context of Korea. 149 college students(lay persons) and 185 law school students(legal experts) participated in the experiment, and three scenarios adapted from real criminal cases were used as experiment materials. The front part of the scenarios are all the same, but the contents of outcomes are different ; one scenario contains the injury outcome caused by the actor’s behave, another one shows non-injury outcome, and the other one does not suggest any outcome. Subjects rated the actor on negligence. Results indicated that the judgements of law school students were not biased by the outcome information, while college students were affected by the outcome information, showing hindsight bias. Moreover, it can be confirmed through qualitative analysis on the open question about the reason of the judgement that college students are more likely to depend on the ‘outcome information’ when they make a decision, showing that lay persons are more vulnerable to hindsight bias than legal experts. This study suggests the necessity of continuous research on the risk of cognitive bias in the investigation and trial by showing the result that the hindsight bias influences the legal decision making. Keywords: Negligence, Cognitive bias, Hindsight bias, In dubio pro reo, Legal decision making
참고문헌 (39)
- 김일수, "새로 쓴 형법" (2014), 박영사
- 김청택, "법정의사결정에서의 판사들의 인지편향", 서울대학교 법학, 51(4), pp.317~345 (2010), 법학연구소
- 김병수, "국민참여재판의 활성화 방안에 관한 연구", 형사정책, 23(1), pp.35~64 (2011), 한국형사정책학회[DOI]
- 윤영철, "형법의 목적으로서의 자유보장원칙에 관한 고찰", 아주법학, 8(4), pp.167~203 (2015), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 조상제, "과실범론의 체계적 재구성", 형사정책연구, 18(3), pp.45~78 (2007), 한국형사법무정책연구원
- 주호노, "형법에 있어서의 기본원칙", 경희법학, 51(3), pp.111~149 (2016), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 최인철, "사후 과잉 확신 편향과 인과 추론", 한국심리학회지:일반, 23(1), pp.137~152 (2004), 한국심리학회
- 황진, "스포츠 상황에서의 사후과잉확신 편향 연구", 박사, 체육교육, pp.2005
- Anderson, N. H, "Foundations of information integration theory" (1981), Academic Press
- Anderson, J.C., "The mitigation of hindsight bias in judges’ evaluation of auditor decisions", Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 16(2), pp.20~39 (1997)
- Arkes, H.R., "Hindsight bias among physicians weighing the likelihood of diagnoses", Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(2), pp.252~254 (1981)
- Arkes, H.R., "Eliminating the hindsight bias", Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, pp.305~307 (1988)
- Berlin, L., "Hindsight bias", American Journal of Roentgenology, 166(6), pp.1259~1261 (2000)
- Bornstein, B., "From compassion to compensation: The effect of injury severity on mock jurors’ liability judgments", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(16), pp.1477~1502 (1998)
- Blendon, R.J., "Views of practicing physicians and the public on medical errors", New England Journal of Medicine, 347, pp.1933~1940 (2002)
- Campbell, J.D., "Motivational interpretations of hindsight bias: An individual difference analysis", Journal of Personality, 51, pp.605~620 (1983)
- Caplan, R.A., "Effect of outcome on physician judgments of appropriateness of care", Journal of the American Medical Association of America, 265(15), pp.1957~1960 (1991)
- Casper, J.D., "Cognitions, attitudes and decision-making in search and seizure cases", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(2), pp.93~113 (1988)
- Casper, J.D., "Juror decision making, attitudes, and the hindsight bias", Law and Humans Behavior, 13(3), pp.291~310 (1989)
- Dellarosa, D., "Decisions and memory: Dif-ferential retrievability of consistent and contradictory evidence", Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, pp.669~682 (1984)
- Fessel, F., "Hindsight Bias, Visul Aids, and Legal Decision Making: Timing is Everything", Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(4), pp.180~103 (2011)
- Fischhoff, B., "Hindsight ≠foresight : The effect of outcome knowledge on judgement under uncertainty", Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, pp.288~299 (1975)
- Fischhoff, B., "I knew it would happen- Remembered probabilities of once-future things", Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, pp.1~16 (1975)
- Greene, E., "The effects of injury severity on jury negligence decisions", Law and Human Behavior, 23(6), pp.675~693 (1999)
- Harley, E.M., "The “saw-it-all-along” effect: Demonstrations of visual hindsight bias", Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 30, pp.960~968 (2004)
- Hastie, R., "What juries can’t do well: The jury’s performance as a risk manager", Arizona Law Review, 40, pp.901~921 (1998)
- Hastie, R., "Juror judgments in civil cases: Hindsight effects on judgments of liability for punative damages", Law and Human Behavior, 23(5), pp.597~614 (1999)
- Horowitz,I., "An experimental investigation of procedural issues in complex tort trials", Law and Human Behavior, 14, pp.269~285 (1990)
- Kamin, K.A., "Ex post not = ex ante: Determining Liability in hindsight", Law and Human Behavior, 19, pp.89~104 (1995)
- LaBine, S.J., "Determinations of negligence and the hindsight bias", Law and Human Behavior, 20, pp.501~516 (1996)
- Leary, M.R., "The distorted nature of hindsight", Journal of Social Psychology, 115, pp.25~29 (1981)
- Musch, J., "Did everybody know it all along? A review of individual differences in hindsight bias", Social Cognition, 25, pp.64~82 (2007)
- Roese, N.J., "The propensity effect: When Foresight trumps hindsight", Psychological Science, 17, pp.305~310 (2006)
- Sanna, L.J., "Meta cognitive experiences and hindsight bias: It’s not just the thought that counts!", Social Cognition, 25, pp.185~202 (2007)
- Smith, A.C., "Conduct and its consequences: Attempts at debiasing jury judgments", Law and Human Behavior, 29(5), pp.505~526 (2005)
- Stallard, M.J., "Reducing the hindsight bias utilizing attorney closing arguments", Law and Human Behavior, 22, pp.671~683 (1988)
- Wexler, D., "How and when to correct for juror hindsight bias in mental health malpractice litigation: Some preliminary observations", Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, pp.485~497 (1989)
- Wood, G., "The knew-it-all-along effect", Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Perception and Performance, 4, pp.345~353 (1978)
- Zeisel, H., "Split trials and time-saving: A statistical analysis", Harvard Law Review, 76, pp.1606~1625 (1963)