The Journal of the Korea Contents Association (한국콘텐츠학회논문지)

The Korea Contents Association (한국콘텐츠학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Reasonable Limits to Contents and Submission of Victim Impact Statement -From Psychological Perspective-

피해자충격진술의 내용 및 방법에 대한 비판적 검토 -심리학적 관점을 중심으로-

  • 이권철 (백석대학교 법행정경찰학부) ;
  • 이영림 (단국대학교 심리학과)
  • Received : 2016.05.11
  • Accepted : 2016.06.28
  • Published : 2016.09.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Victim Impact Statement, adopted as a crime victims' right, has been implemented in Korean criminal justice system since 2007, and known that the statement enlarges victims' right in courts and alleviates their suffering resulted from the crime. The statement, however, has raised concerns of infringing on a defendant's procedural rights. Scholars and practitioners had focused more on the legal issue, overlooking psychological effect of the statement to decision-makers in courts. This research reviews fallacy of impact assessment and therapeutic effect from psychological perspective, and also suggests alternatives to assuage the concerns by admission of the statement.

피해자양형진술권은 2007년 형사소송법에 규정되어 시행되고 있다. 피해자의 재판과정 참여를 통해 피해 자의 권리행사 확대 및 피해의 치유를 유도한다는 점에서 도입의 필요성이 인정된다. 그러나 피고인의 절차적 권리의 침해 가능성에 따른 피해진술의 합리적 제한방안에 대한 연구는 대부분 법학적 관점에서 도입에 대한 찬반론과 관련하여 진행되었을 뿐이고, 심리학적 측면에서 피해진술이 재판의 의사결정에 미치는 영향에 대한 논의는 부족하였다. 따라서 피해자가 받은 범죄피해가 법정에서 표현될 때 과연 정확히 측정되고 전달되어 법률적 판단의 합리성에 기여할 수 있는지에 대한 연구가 필요하다. 본 연구는 이와 같은 필요성에 기초하여 심리학적 측면에서 피해자양형진술을 통한 범죄피해 측정의 오류가능성 및 전달과정에서 발생하는 과대평가 등의 문제점과 피해자치유의 측면의 불완전성 등의 쟁점을 검토하였다. 이를 토대로 피해자 양형진술의 실무에 있어 진술내용의 제한 및 필요절차 도입 등의 개선을 위한 대안을 제시하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Constitutional Court of Korea, 1989. 4. 17, 88 Heonma 3 Decision.
  2. J. Hoffmann, "Revenge or Mercy? Some Thought about Survivor Opinion Evidence in Death Penalty Cases," Cornell Law Review, Vol.88, No.2, pp.530-542, 2003.
  3. J. Kim, Research on System of Victim Opinion Statement, Korean Institute of Criminology, 2008.
  4. K. Lee, Reasonable Limits on Victim's Right to be Heard at Capital Sentencing, Indiana University, 2008.
  5. W. Logan, "Victim Impact Evidence in Federal Capital Trials," Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol.19, No.1, pp.5-12, Oct. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2006.19.1.05
  6. Y. Min, "A Critical Examination on Victim Statement of Opinion," J. of the Justice, No.93, pp.164-179, 2006.
  7. J. Greenberg, "Is Payne Defensible?: the Constitutionality of Admitting Victim Impact Evidence at Capital Sentencing Hearing," Indiana Law Journal, Vol.75, No.4, pp.1349-1382, 2000.
  8. W. Logan, "Opining on Death: Witness Sentence Recommendations in Capital Trials," Boston College Law Review, Vol.41, No.3, pp.517-547, 2000.
  9. Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, at 506. n.8, 1987.
  10. R. Mosteller, "The Effect of Victim-Impact Evidence on the Defense," J. of Criminal Justice, Vol.8, No.24, pp.27-28, 1993.
  11. S. Bandes, "Empathy, Narrative, and Victim Impact Statements," University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.63, No.2, pp.361-412, 1996. https://doi.org/10.2307/1600234
  12. E. Mandery, "Notions of Symmetry and Self in Death Penalty Jurisprudence," Stanford Law & Policy Review, Vol.15, No.2, pp.471-518, 2004.
  13. E. Suh, E. Diener, and F. Fujita, "Events and Subjective Well-Being: Only Recent Events Matter," J. of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.70, No.5, pp.1091-1102, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.1091
  14. P. Brickman, D. Coates, and R. Janoff-Bulman, "Lottery Winners and Accident Victims: Is Happiness Relative?," J. of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.36, No.5, pp.917-927, 1978. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.8.917
  15. E. Greene, H. Koehring and M. Quiat, "Victim Impact Evidence in Capital Cases: Does the Victim's Character Matter?," J. of Applied Social Psychology, Vol.28, No.2, pp.145-151, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01697.x
  16. E, Greene, "The Many Guises of Victim Impact Evidence and Effects on Juror's Judgments," J. of Psychology, Crime and Law, Vol.5, No.4, pp.331-348, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683169908401776
  17. R. Davis, First Year Evaluation of the Victim Impact Demonstration Project, Victim Services Agency, City of New York, 1985.
  18. E. Ereza and P. Tontodonatoa, "Victim participation in sentencing and satisfaction with justice," Justice Quarterly, Vol.95, No.3, pp.393-417, 1992.
  19. E. Erez, L. Roeger, and F. Morgan, Victim Impact Statements In South Australia: An Evaluation, Australian Attorney-General's Department, 1994.
  20. R. Davis and B. Smith, "Victim Impact Statements and Victim Satisfaction: an Unfulfilled Promise?," J. of Criminal Justice, Vol.22, No.1, 1994.
  21. J. Anderson, "Will the Punishment Fit the Victims? The Case for Pre-trial Disclosure, and the Uncharted Future of Victim Impact Information in Capital Jury Sentencing," Rutgers Law Journal, Vol.28, No.1, p.367, 1997.
  22. J. Donahoe, "The Changing Role of Victim Impact Evidence in Capital Cases," Western Criminology Review, Vol.2, No.1, 1999.