미국의 뇌과학 증거의 증거허용에 대한 논의와 국내 시사점에 관한 소고
The study on admissibility and probative value of neuroscience evidence by researching U. S. A legal system
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Men have always been curious about human behavior and brain which controls the behavior. The supposition that brain could control human behavior is not just a supposition anymore, and brain science is continuously developing to prove that supposition. With the development, men are now able to take photos of brain structure and brain response. The advancement of brain technology such as PET scan, fMRI, MRI influenced research on brain. Before this technological advancement, scientists relied on animal experiment or computer modeling for brain study. However, the problem is that the court does not accept offender’s brain status at the time of crime as evidence. The special situation called ‘mental disorder’ is still maintained, and insane peoples’ impulsive mentality and brain immaturity maintain after or before the crime. Thus, we have to say that brain images taken before the crime and after the crime does not have great influence to change decision on responsibility. So, we have to establish a consistent standard in accepting brain science evidence in a court.
Abstract
Men have always been curious about human behavior and brain which controls the behavior. The supposition that brain could control human behavior is not just a supposition anymore, and brain science is continuously developing to prove that supposition. With the development, men are now able to take photos of brain structure and brain response. The advancement of brain technology such as PET scan, fMRI, MRI influenced research on brain. Before this technological advancement, scientists relied on animal experiment or computer modeling for brain study. However, the problem is that the court does not accept offender’s brain status at the time of crime as evidence. The special situation called ‘mental disorder’ is still maintained, and insane peoples’ impulsive mentality and brain immaturity maintain after or before the crime. Thus, we have to say that brain images taken before the crime and after the crime does not have great influence to change decision on responsibility. So, we have to establish a consistent standard in accepting brain science evidence in a court.
참고문헌 (16)
- 김도훈, "미국 증거법상 컴퓨터 애니메이션과 시뮬레이션에 관한 논의", 원광법학, 26(1), pp.295~319 (2010), 법학연구소
- 김성룡, "현행법에서 과학적 증거의 증거능력과 증명력", 형사법연구, 24(4), pp.199~225 (2012), 한국형사법학회
- 민병경, "뇌-컴퓨터 접속장치 기술의 현재와 미래, 뇌과학 경계를 넘다" (2012), 바다출판사
- 법과학을 적용한 형사사법의 선진화 방안(Ⅰ), "박미숙", 형사정책연구원, 373~ (2010)
- 이응혁, "형사재판상 과학적 증거의 기준과 국내 발전방향 -최근 미국에서의 과학적 증거의 개혁논의를 중심으로-", 형사정책, 23(1), pp.301~336 (2011), 한국형사정책학회
- 뇌과학의 발전과 형법적 패러다임 전환에 관한 연구 (Ⅰ)- 뇌과학과 형법의 접점에 관한 예비적 고찰, "탁희성", 형사정책연구원, 75~ (2013)
- 홍성욱, "뇌 속의 인간 인간속의 뇌" (2010), 바다출판사
- Adina L. Roskies, "Brain Inage as Evidence in the Criminal law", Law and Neuroscience, 13 (2001)
- "Brain Waves Module 4; Neuroscience and the law", The Royal society, ~ (2011)
- George F. James, "Relevancy, Probability, and the Law", CAL. L. REV, 29 (1941)
- EDWARD J. IMWINKELRIED, "CRIMINAL EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATION" (1997)
- Kevin H, Smith, "External validity: Representativeness and Projectability in the Pribative Value of Sample Survey", WAYNE L, 39 (1993)
- Jill Witkowski, "Can Juries Really Belive What They See? New Foundational Requirements for the Authentication of Digital Image", WASH.U. J.L. & POL’Y n, 10, pp.53~ (2002)
- O. Carter Snead, "Neuroimaging and the “Complexity of Capital Punishment", N. Y. U. L. Rev, 82 (2007)
- Teneille Brown, "Through A Scanner Darkly :Functional Neuroimagina As Evidence of A Criminal Defendant’s past Mental States", Stan. L. Rev, 62 (2009)
- Jessie A Seiden, "The Criminal Brain: Frontal Lobe Dysfunction Evidence in Capital Proceedings", CAP, DEF. J, 16, pp.395~ (2003)