과제정보
이 논문은 2018년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2018S1A5B5A02030844).
참고문헌
- 구자룡 (2021. 6. 11). '무죄' 맞나요?. 법률신문. https://m.lawtimes.co.kr/Content/Opinion?serial=170687 에서 2022. 1. 22에 최종검색.
- 국립국어원 (2022). 표준국어대사전. https://stdict.korean.go.kr/search/searchView.do 에서 2022. 01. 22 자료 얻음.
- 김대성 (2018). 국민참여재판 배심원 평결의 효력에 대한 고찰. 법학논총, 40, 41-60. https://doi.org/10.35867/SSULRI.2018.40..003
- 박광배 (2020). 형사소송법의 이념적 딜레마: 실체진실주의. In 윤진수 등 (2020). 법의 딜레마. (pp. 482-494). 법문사.
- 박광배, 김상준, 안정호 (2017). 무죄론. 학지사.
- 이승택 (2017. 5. 24). 형사소송법의 '무죄'선고 규정의 개정을 바란다. 법률신문. https://m.lawtimes.co.kr/Content/Opinion?serial=118284 에서 2022. 1. 22에 최종검색.
- 장중식 (2009). 우리나라 국민참여재판제도의 문제점과 개선과제. 법학연구, 36, 401-422.
- 전성훈 (2020. 8. 4). 골프채가 밝힌 강간치상 사건. 의사신문. http://www.doctorstimes.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=211855 에서 2022. 1. 22에 최종검색.
- 정진연 (2006). 국민참여재판에서 한국형 배심제의 도입. 법학논총, 15, 1-22.
- 한유화, 박광배 (2017). 유일한 증거와 일반인의 법적 판단: 순환논증의 오류와 인과추론 경향성. 한국심리학회지: 법, 8(2), 61-79. https://doi.org/10.53302/KJFP.2017.07.8.2.61
- 한유화, 박광배 (2018). 유일한 증거와 일반인의 법적 판단: 과대추정된 사후확률과 유무죄 판단의 역치. 한국심리학회지: 법, 9(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.53302/KJFP.2018.03.9.1.1
- 한유화, 이우열 (2021). 연속적 간격법의 소개와 활용법_행동의 비난가능성 측정을 중심으로. 한국심리학회지: 일반. 4(4). 635-666.
- Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of Information Integration Theory. New York: Academic Press.
- Altman, N., & Krzywinski, M. (2015). Points of Significance: Association, correlation and causation. Nature methods, 12(10), 899-900. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3587
- Arce-Ferrer, A. J. (2006). An investigation into the factors influencing extreme-response style. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6(3), 374-392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405278575
- Dane, F. C. (1985). In search of reasonable doubt. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 141-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067048
- Dhami, M. K. (2008). On measuring quantitative interpretations of reasonable doubt. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 353-363. doi:10.1037/a0013344
- Gannon, K. M., & Ostrom, T. M. (1996). How meaning is given to rating scales: The ef ects of response language on category activation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32(4), 337-360. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1996.0016
- Han, Y. (2021). Quantifying an implicit legal threshold and mental representations of 'Innocent:'a comparison of implicit and theoretical thresholds for a legal decision. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 32(6), 836-860. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2021.1925730
- Hofstede, G. J., Jonker, C. M., & Verwaart, T. (2008, April). Modeling culture in trade: uncertainty avoidance. In SpringSim (pp. 143-150).
- Kerr, N. (1993). Stochastic models of juror decision-making. In R. Hastie (ed.), Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision-making (pp. 116-135). New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Mayo, R., Schul, Y., & Burnstein, E. (2004). "I am not guilty" vs "I am innocent": Successful negation may depend on the schema used for its encoding. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 433-449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.07.008
- Park, K. (2011). Estimating juror accuracy, juror ability, and the relationship between them. Law and human behavior, 35(4), 288-305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9240-6
- Park, K., Han, Y. H., & Seong, Y. R. (2010). The ef ect of double judgments on public confidence in court decisions for the trial by citizen-participation in Korea. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 38(4), 166-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2011.01.003
- Pennington, N. & Hastie, R. (1981). Juror decision-making models: the generalization gap. Psychological Bulletin, 89(2), 246-287. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.89.2.246
- Pi, D., Parisi, F., & Luppi, B. (2018). Quantifying Reasonable Doubt. Rutgers University Law Review, 72(2).
- Schaef er, N. C., & Presser, S. (2003). The science of asking questions. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 65-88. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.110702.110112
- Schum, D. A. & Martin, A. W. (1993). Formal and empirical research on cascaded inference in jurisprudence. In R. Hastie (ed.), Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision-making (pp. 136-174). New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Schwarz, N., Knauper, B., Hippler, H. J., Noelle-Neumann, E., & Clark, L. (1991). Rating scales: Numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(4), 570-582. https://doi.org/10.1086/269282
- Wildt, A. R., & Mazis, M. B. (1978). Determinants of scale response: Label versus position. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(2), 261-267. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377801500209
- Wright, D. B., Strubler, K. A., & Vallano, J. P. (2011). Statistical techniques for juror and jury research. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16(1), 90-125 https://doi.org/10.1348/135532510X487655