• Korean Journal of Forensic Psychology
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.1-22
• /
• 2022

This study tested the effect of the verdict category of lay-participation trial in Korea on the legal decision of layperson and the role of representation of 'innocent' in the process. Representation of 'innocent' refers to a psychological threshold for deciding someone's innocence (no fault or sin) in a general sense. The functions as a threshold for a legal decision of 'beyond a reasonable doubt (BRD)' and the individual threshold (IT), regarded as a standard for judgment of guilt established by law and an estimate of an individual's threshold, respectively, were compared. This study used a 2×2 complete factorial design in which the verdict category (guilty/innocent vs. guilty/not guilty) and the defendant's likelihood of guilt (low vs. high) were manipulated. Data from 137 lay-people who voluntarily participated in the online experiment was analyzed. The experiment's procedure was in the order of measuring 'representation of innocent' and the likelihood of guilt of an accused, presenting one of four trial vignettes, and obtaining legal decisions (verdict confidence and estimation of the likelihood of guilt for the defendant). As a result, it was found that the verdict category did not significantly affect the legal decision of layperson. However, the guilty verdict rate of the 'guilty/innocent' condition tended to be higher than those of the 'guilty/not guilty' condition. The layperson's representation of 'innocent' and the verdict category had an interaction effect on the difference between BRD and IT (threshold change) at the significance level of .1. In the 'guilty/innocent' condition, the threshold change varying with layperson's representation of 'innocent' was larger than in the 'guilty/not guilty' condition. In comparing the function of BRD and IT, IT significantly predicted the lay person's legal decision at the significance level of .1 by interacting with the likelihood of guilt for the defendant. Therefore, it could be said that IT was a better threshold estimator than BRD. The implication of this study is that it provided experimental evidence for the effect of the verdict category of lay-participation trial in Korea, which is a problem often raised among lawyers, and suggested logical reasoning and empirical grounds for the psychological mechanism of the possible effect.

• Korean Journal of Culture and Social Issue
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.159-178
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this study was to 1) replicate the Wells effect(i.e., reluctance to rule against the Defendant solely on the basis of probabilistic evidence) in Korea and 2) examine the validity of an Alternative explanation(i.e., perception of risk of wrong verdict). In study 1(n=46), mock jurors in the tire-tracks condition were reluctant to rule against the defendant based on their perceived probability and this pattern was not resulted in the tire-tracks-belief condition. Therefore, the Wells effect was replicated in Korea. In study 2(n=70), we manipulated the participants' perception of risk of wrong verdict. That is, participants who were assigned in the high risk perception of wrong verdict were informed that if the defendant were found guilty, the defendant would get considerable demage both in finance and reputation of the company. Participants in the low risk perception of wrong verdict condition were informed that these demage would not be great. The results revealed that the Wells effect was pronounced in the high risk perception of wrong verdict condition. That is, participants were more reluctant to rule against the defendant when they perceive the significance of the result of wrong verdict as high. Limitations of the study and the directions for future study were discussed.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.10
• /
• pp.293-322
• /
• 2005

The culpability of a person, as determined by due process of law, for any of his actions that are defined as criminal. Determination of such responsibility is a legal function, not a psychiatric one, although a psychiatrist may be called upon to present evidence to the court in order to aid the judge or jury in reaching a decision as to responsibility. Determination of responsibility varies with the laws of the state in which the accused is being tried, but in general all states base their laws on three famous judicial decisions concerning criminal responsibility. 1. the M'Naghten(McNaughton) rule(a. to establish such a defense the accused, at the time the act was committed, must be shown to have been laboring under such defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, b. if he did know it, he did or know that what he was doing was wrong). 2. the irresistible impulse test. 3. the Durham decision. Under the Durham test, however, the psychiatrist may give any relevant testmony concerning the mental illness at issue. The psychological and behavioral appearance of a person, in clinical psychiatry this term is commonly used to refer to the results of the mental examination of a patient. The written report of the mental status usually contains specific references to the following areas: I. Attitude and General Behavior (1)General health and appearance. (2)General habits of dress. (3)Personal habits. (4)General mood. (5)Use of leisure time. (6)Degree of sociability. (7)Speech. II. Attitude and Behavior during interview (1)Co-operativeness. (2)Poise. (3)Facial expression. (4)Motor activity. (5)Mental activity. (6)Emotional reactions. (7)Trend of thought. III. Sensorium, mental grasp, and capacity (1)Orientation. (2)Memory and retention. (3)Estimate of intelligence. (4)Abstraction ability. (5)Tests of absurdity, interpretation of proverbs. (6)Judgment.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.43
• /
• pp.177-204
• /
• 2015

The Korean Criminal Code ${\S}10$ (1) provides that "The act of a person who, because of mental disorder, is unable to make discriminations or to control one's will, shall not be punished". Therefore, it'll not be able to be given criminal punishment if a mentally defective person is determined to lack the criminal liability. The problem about judging the criminal liability for the mentally defective person exists in areas where the criminal law intersects with psychiatry. Although the supreme court ultimately judges whether the criminal liability by mental defectiveness exists or not, the judgment of mental defectiveness, which is biological element, needs psychiatric knowledge and it is no wonder to rely on this. In particular, a change is required in the procedure and contents of mental examination for a mentally defective person as implementation of the Civil Participation in Criminal Jury Trial. It is needed the improvement of procedure to submit more accurate mental examination and the result of it in order that jurors are able to understand the result of mental examination and make an decision. This is because jurors consisting of ordinary citizens take part in trial. For guaranteeing the precise result of mental examination in the criminal justice procedure, it is necessary to establish the pool of manpower consisting of psychiatrists or psychologists who have completed the specific educational programs about the criminal justice and legal psychiatry, and it is desired to carry out the psychiatric test with selecting appraisers who belong to a pool of manpower. Furthermore, it is required to draw up and submit the written appraisal of mental examination which is easy to be known because of considering the nonprofessional of jurors consisting of ordinary citizens in the Civil Participation in Criminal Jury Trial. In order to gain a fair verdict of the jury about whether mental defectiveness exists or not, it is recommended the prompt submission of the written appraisal of mental examination, the presentation of the written appraisal of mental examination summarizing the important contents, and making out the written appraisal of mental examination for jurors to understand it easily.