국내 형사재판에서의 전문심리위원 활용실태: 심리학 분야 전문가를 중심으로
Activities of Experts in Korean Criminal Procedure: Focus on Expert Testimony of Psychologists
0
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
본 논문에서는 최근 형사소송법의 개정으로 도입된 전문심리위원제도 중 특히 심리학 분야의 전문가들이 형사사건의 재판과정에서 실질적으로 어떤 역할을 수행하고 있는지 확인하려고 하였다. 이를 위하여 일단 형사절차에서의 전문심리위원들의 역할을 명확히 하고, 외국의 유사제도와 비교하여 보았다. 다음으로는 현재 형사사건의 전문심리위원으로 활동하고 있는 3인이 개입된 43건의 사례를 살펴봄으로써 실질적으로 전문심리위원들의 의견이 재판에 어떻게 반영되는지 살펴보았다. 빈도분석 결과, 성폭력사건과 살인사건에서 전문심리위원들의 의견 개진을 가장 많이 요구하였으며 성폭력사건은 재범과 치료가능성을, 살인사건은 범행전후의 심리상태에 대해 감정을 요구하였다. 43건의 항소심 결과, 전문심리위원들의 의견은 판결에 상당한 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다.
Abstract
This research explored the roles and activities of psychological experts in the criminal procedure. which was recently amended. For this purpose, it was defined what the roles of experts in criminal cases and various corresponding systems were compared. Finally, 43 cases involved by three experts in psychological area were analyzed. Judicial decision were effectively influenced by the opinions of experts. Statistical analyses found that experts were most frequently required to present the risk of recidivism for the sex offenses and the mental state at the time of offenses for the homicide cases. Judicial decisions of 43 criminal cases were significantly influenced by experts' opinions.
참고문헌 (37)
- 문형배, "전문심리위원제도의 개선 및 활성화 방안. in: 착한 사람들을 위한 법 이야기" (2008)
- 박상열, "개정판 형사소송법" (2009), 형설출판사
- 사법정책실, "전문심리위원 제도 해설" (2007), 법원행정처
- 임채웅, "민사소송법의 전문심리위원제도에 관한 연구", 민사소송, 11(2), pp.176~202 (2007), 한국민사소송법학회
- 정영수, "민사소송에서의 전문심리위원에 관한 연구", 민사소송, 12(1), pp.170~200 (2008), 한국민사소송법학회
- 조은경, "공판중심주의에 적합한 전문가 증인 활용방안" (2008), 한림대학교 산학협력단
- 천진호, "상소제도론의 발전과 전망", 형사법연구, (22), pp.312~342 (2004), 한국형사법학회
- 한남현, "형사소송법" (2009), 법문사
- Brekke, N., "Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, pp.372~386 (1988)
- Foote, W. E., "APA and the amicus process: COLI's perspective", Symposium paper presented at the meetings of the American Psychological Association (1998)
- Freckelton, I., "Psychiatry and psychology: mistrusted guests at the legal table: contemporary operation of the common knowledge rule", pp.49~68 (1990)
- Gudjonsson, G. H., "Blood-injury phobia: a ‘reasonable excuse' for failing to give a specimen in case of suspected drunken driving", Journal of Forensic Science Society, 23, pp.197~201 (1983)
- Gudjonsson, G. H., "Psychological evidence in court", psychologist, 9, pp.213~ (1996)
- Gabora, N. J., "The effects of complainant age and expert psychological testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial", Law and Human Behavior, 17, pp.103~119 (1993)
- Goodman-Delahunty, R., "Forensic psychological expertise in the wake of Daubert", Law and Human Behavior, 21, pp.121~140 (1997)
- Grisso, T., "Psychology's influence on constitutional interpretation: A comment on how to succeed", Law and Human Behavior, 15, pp.205~211 (1991)
- Grove, Barden, Garb, "Failure of Rorschach-Comprehensive- System-based testimony to be admissible under the Daubert-Joiner-Kumho standard", Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, pp.216~234 (2002)
- Gudjonsson, G. H., "Psychological evidence in court: results from the BPS survey", Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 38, pp.327~30 (1985)
- Haward, L. R. C., "Forensic Psychology" (1981), Batsford
- Kovera, M. B., "Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making?, A social cognitive analysis" (1997)
- Lally Stephen J., "What Test Are Acceptable for Use in Forensic Evaluations?: A Survey of Experts, Professional Psychology", Research and Practice, 34(5), pp.491~498 (2003)
- Lally, S. J., "Should human figure drawings be admitted into court?", Journal of Personality Assessment, 76, pp.135~149 (2001)
- Lieberman, J. D., "Determining Dangerousness in Sexually Violent Predator Evaluations: Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory and Juror Judgments of Expert Testimony", Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, pp.507~526 (2007)
- Melton, G., "Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers" (1997), Guilford Press
- Mackay, R. D., "Equivocal Rulings on Expert Psychological and Psychiatric Evidence: Turning a Muddle into a Nonsense", Criminal Law Review, pp.88~95 (1996)
- Odgers, S., "Keeping bad Science out of the Courtroom: Changes in American and Australian Evidence law", University of New South Wales Law Journal, 18, pp.108~129 (1995)
- Richardson, J. T., "The problems of applying Daubert to psychological syndrome evidence", Judicature, 79, pp.1~9 (1995)
- Ritzler, Erard, "final reply to Grove and Barden: The relevance of the Rorschach Comprehensive System for expert testimony", Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, pp.235~246 (2002)
- Ritzler, Erard, "Protecting the integrity of Rorschach expert witness: A reply to Grove and Barden(1999) Re: The admissibility of testimony under Daubert", Kumho analyses, 2002, pp.8, 201~215
- Gatowski, S., "Diffusion of scientific evidence: A comparative analysis of admissibility standards in Australia, Canada, England, and the United States", Expert Evidence, 4, pp.86~92 (1995)
- Saks, M. J., "Improving APA science translation amicus briefs", Law and Human Behavior, 17, pp.235~247 (1993)
- Schuller, R. A., "The impact of battered woman syndrome evidence on jury decision processes", Law and Human Behavior, 16, pp.597~620 (1992)
- Shuman, D. W., "The admissibility of expert testimony based upon clinical judgment and science research", Psychology Public Policy and Law, 4, pp.1226~1252 (1998)
- Steffensmeier, D., "Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes in U.S. federal courts: Who is punished more harshly?", American Sociological Review, 65, pp.705~729 (2000)
- Tremper, C., "Organized psychology's efforts to influence judicial policy-making", American Psychologist, 42, pp.496~501 (1987)
- Winick Bruce J., "Protecting Society From Sexually Dangerous Offenders" (2003), The American Psychological Association
- Wrightsman, L. S., "Forensic Psychology" (2001), Wadsworth
