• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.11 no.12
• /
• pp.250-257
• /
• 2011

3 years and 10 months has passed since the New Citizen Participation in Criminal Trial was first enforced to secure reliability of people by reinforcing democratic legitimacy of jurisdiction and raising transparency. It can be evaluated positive in that procedural democracy as well as fair and prudent trial is realized, enabling people to participate at criminal justice procedure. However, new citizen participation in criminal trial targets only a very few case and recognize hortatory effects of jury's verdict only, not the binding effects. In addition, it still has various problems including limit to target cases, selection system of defendants, exclusion determination system, participation of conference of the judge and verdict by majority vote of the jury. In this regard, this study aims to examine several issues and problems, and to present alternative for this.

• Korean Journal of Culture and Social Issue
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.59-84
• /
• 2005

Three studies were conducted to examine the degree to which three common heuristics, anchoring heuristic, framing effect and representative-ness heuristic, influence the decision-making precesses of actual judges and 5-persons mock juries. With scenarios regarding various issues that are commonly raised in actual criminal and civil trials, study 1 examined the 158 actual judges' decisions. In study 2, the decisions of 80 mock jury groups that consisted of college students were examined with similar scenarios. And individual decisions were examined in study 3 to compare with the group decisions in study 2. The decision processes of the actual judges and the mock jury groups alike were found to be influenced by "anchors". But the biases by the anchoring heuristic were more pronounced in the group decisions than in the decisions of the actual judges. With respect to framing effect, the actual judges were found to be resistant, while a small effect was found in the decisions of mock jury groups. Representative-ness biases weren't found in the decisions of both the actual judges and mock juries. The implications of the results for judicial systems were discussed.

• Korean Journal of Forensic Psychology
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.171-197
• /
• 2021

The purpose of this study is to examine empirically how the lay people judge self-defense and what factors could affect it. A total of 651 participants aged 20 years and over were asked to answer, attitude toward interpersonal violence, and legal attitude questionnaire, all divided by the type of self-defense. Participants were assigned one of the three types of situations that were claimed to be self-defense, and were given articles and scenarios related to each type of self-defense before making self-defense judgments. In addition, the impact of personal factors on self-defense judgment was analyzed after the legal attitude, and the attitude toward interpersonal violence, which are personal factors, was also measured. The results showed that the rate of recognition of self-defense was the highest in the type of self-defense for oneself, but the rate of denial of self-defense against state agencies was much higher, indicating the opposite. Furthemore, negative articles on self-defense were found to affect the judgment of self-defense. In addition, it was found that the level of the attitude toward interpersonal violence and legal attitude of individual participants could affect the judgment of self-defense. The general public's judgment process and the factors that affect self-defense judgment may be considered to prevent biased judgment in actual jury trials. Finally, influence, and limitations of this study and suggestions of subsequent study were also discussed.