PARTNER
검증된 파트너 제휴사 자료

피해자의 재판절차진술권에 관한 연구: 미국 연방사형재판에서 피해자영향증거를 중심으로 (A Study of a Victim’s Right to Give a Statement during Trial Proceedings: Focusing on Victim Impact Evidence in United States Federal Capital Trials)

31 페이지
기타파일
최초등록일 2025.06.10 최종저작일 2012.10
31P 미리보기
피해자의 재판절차진술권에 관한 연구: 미국 연방사형재판에서 피해자영향증거를 중심으로
  • 미리보기

    서지정보

    · 발행기관 : 한국피해자학회
    · 수록지 정보 : 피해자학연구 / 20권 / 2호 / 55 ~ 85페이지
    · 저자명 : 장원경

    초록

    Article 27, paragraph (5) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea guarantees a victim of crime the right to give a statement during trial proceedings. Article 294-2, paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act specifies this constitutional right: “The court shall, upon receiving a petition from a victim of a crime or his/her legal representative (including his/her spouse, lineal relative, sibling, if the victim is dead), admit such victim as witness for examination.” Despite these provisions,a victim’s right to give such statements during trial proceedings has not been substantially realized in the Korean criminal justice procedure. Details of exercising this right—such as during exactly which phase of trial proceedings a victim makes statements and how a victim presents those statements—have not yet been enumerated in law. In addition, a disagreement has been brought up regarding what a victim may express in his/her statement—whether or not to allow a victim’s opinion concerning the future punishment of a defendant, if found guilty.
    In the United States, on the other hand, victim impact evidence has been admitted in the sentencing phase of capital trials over the last twenty years. In Payne v.
    Tennessee (1991), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “if the State chooses to permit the admission of victim impact evidence and prosecutorial argument on that subject,the Eighth Amendment erects no per se bar,” reversing its prior decisions in Booth v. Maryland (1987) and South Carolina v. Gathers (1989). Of the three different types of victim impact evidence identified by the Court, only two—evidence of the victim’s unique personal characteristics and evidence of the crime’s impact on the victim’s family and community (or victim impact statement) have been allowed at capital sentencing proceedings. The third kind of evidence—the victim’s sentencing opinion (or victim statement of opinion)—is still prohibited by the Court’s prior decision.
    After Payne v. Tennessee, the federal criminal justice system has adopted a statutory basis of victim impact evidence and developed criteria for procedural controls and substantive limits on such evidence. Enacted in 1994, the Federal Death Penalty Act explicitly permits submission of a victim impact statement and requires a prosecutor to provide a defendant with in-advance notice of the intent to use such evidence. Following the Federal Death Penalty Act, federal courts have granted victim impact evidence as a non-statutory aggravating factor and have generally allowed such evidence in federal capital cases. Federal courts have admitted the victim’s personal characteristics and a wide range of statements about the effect of murder on the victim’s family, without placing any limitations on the number of witnesses who may testify. Federal courts have also permitted presentation of a victim’s pre-death photographs, videotapes, and poems. However, strictly observing the procedural requirement of the Federal Death Penalty Act, federal courts have requested the prosecution to give sufficient notice to the defense by supplying a considerably detailed description of victim impact evidence.
    Referring to United States federal capital trials, several insights for successful implementation have been raised to support a victim’s active exercise of his/her right to give a statement in trial proceedings in Korea. For instance, the Korean Criminal Procedure Act provisions, allowing the court to limit the number of victims who present a statement and presuming an oral statement as the only legitimate form,should be amended, because a victim gives a statement as his/her constitutional right, not in the passive position of a witness. By the same reason, a victim’s statement should be scheduled after a judge reaches a conviction. Even though it is not possible in Korea to separate the sentencing phase plainly from the rest of the trial proceedings, by placing a victim’s statement in the presumptive sentencing phase,he/she would enjoy relative latitude to tell his/her story. Lastly, since a judge, not a jury, makes a sentencing decision in a Korean criminal trial, a victim’s opinion about punishment of the person who wronged him/her is unlikely to exert a prejudicial influence on the judge’s decision. Thus, unlike United States federal capital trials, it does not seem necessary to prohibit a victim’s statement of opinion on sentencing from being presented in Korean criminal trials.

    영어초록

    Article 27, paragraph (5) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea guarantees a victim of crime the right to give a statement during trial proceedings. Article 294-2, paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act specifies this constitutional right: “The court shall, upon receiving a petition from a victim of a crime or his/her legal representative (including his/her spouse, lineal relative, sibling, if the victim is dead), admit such victim as witness for examination.” Despite these provisions,a victim’s right to give such statements during trial proceedings has not been substantially realized in the Korean criminal justice procedure. Details of exercising this right—such as during exactly which phase of trial proceedings a victim makes statements and how a victim presents those statements—have not yet been enumerated in law. In addition, a disagreement has been brought up regarding what a victim may express in his/her statement—whether or not to allow a victim’s opinion concerning the future punishment of a defendant, if found guilty.
    In the United States, on the other hand, victim impact evidence has been admitted in the sentencing phase of capital trials over the last twenty years. In Payne v.
    Tennessee (1991), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “if the State chooses to permit the admission of victim impact evidence and prosecutorial argument on that subject,the Eighth Amendment erects no per se bar,” reversing its prior decisions in Booth v. Maryland (1987) and South Carolina v. Gathers (1989). Of the three different types of victim impact evidence identified by the Court, only two—evidence of the victim’s unique personal characteristics and evidence of the crime’s impact on the victim’s family and community (or victim impact statement) have been allowed at capital sentencing proceedings. The third kind of evidence—the victim’s sentencing opinion (or victim statement of opinion)—is still prohibited by the Court’s prior decision.
    After Payne v. Tennessee, the federal criminal justice system has adopted a statutory basis of victim impact evidence and developed criteria for procedural controls and substantive limits on such evidence. Enacted in 1994, the Federal Death Penalty Act explicitly permits submission of a victim impact statement and requires a prosecutor to provide a defendant with in-advance notice of the intent to use such evidence. Following the Federal Death Penalty Act, federal courts have granted victim impact evidence as a non-statutory aggravating factor and have generally allowed such evidence in federal capital cases. Federal courts have admitted the victim’s personal characteristics and a wide range of statements about the effect of murder on the victim’s family, without placing any limitations on the number of witnesses who may testify. Federal courts have also permitted presentation of a victim’s pre-death photographs, videotapes, and poems. However, strictly observing the procedural requirement of the Federal Death Penalty Act, federal courts have requested the prosecution to give sufficient notice to the defense by supplying a considerably detailed description of victim impact evidence.
    Referring to United States federal capital trials, several insights for successful implementation have been raised to support a victim’s active exercise of his/her right to give a statement in trial proceedings in Korea. For instance, the Korean Criminal Procedure Act provisions, allowing the court to limit the number of victims who present a statement and presuming an oral statement as the only legitimate form,should be amended, because a victim gives a statement as his/her constitutional right, not in the passive position of a witness. By the same reason, a victim’s statement should be scheduled after a judge reaches a conviction. Even though it is not possible in Korea to separate the sentencing phase plainly from the rest of the trial proceedings, by placing a victim’s statement in the presumptive sentencing phase,he/she would enjoy relative latitude to tell his/her story. Lastly, since a judge, not a jury, makes a sentencing decision in a Korean criminal trial, a victim’s opinion about punishment of the person who wronged him/her is unlikely to exert a prejudicial influence on the judge’s decision. Thus, unlike United States federal capital trials, it does not seem necessary to prohibit a victim’s statement of opinion on sentencing from being presented in Korean criminal trials.

    참고자료

    · 없음
  • 자주묻는질문의 답변을 확인해 주세요

    해피캠퍼스 FAQ 더보기

    꼭 알아주세요

    • 자료의 정보 및 내용의 진실성에 대하여 해피캠퍼스는 보증하지 않으며, 해당 정보 및 게시물 저작권과 기타 법적 책임은 자료 등록자에게 있습니다.
      자료 및 게시물 내용의 불법적 이용, 무단 전재∙배포는 금지되어 있습니다.
      저작권침해, 명예훼손 등 분쟁 요소 발견 시 고객센터의 저작권침해 신고센터를 이용해 주시기 바랍니다.
    • 해피캠퍼스는 구매자와 판매자 모두가 만족하는 서비스가 되도록 노력하고 있으며, 아래의 4가지 자료환불 조건을 꼭 확인해주시기 바랍니다.
      파일오류 중복자료 저작권 없음 설명과 실제 내용 불일치
      파일의 다운로드가 제대로 되지 않거나 파일형식에 맞는 프로그램으로 정상 작동하지 않는 경우 다른 자료와 70% 이상 내용이 일치하는 경우 (중복임을 확인할 수 있는 근거 필요함) 인터넷의 다른 사이트, 연구기관, 학교, 서적 등의 자료를 도용한 경우 자료의 설명과 실제 자료의 내용이 일치하지 않는 경우
문서 초안을 생성해주는 EasyAI
안녕하세요. 해피캠퍼스의 방대한 자료 중에서 선별하여 당신만의 초안을 만들어주는 EasyAI 입니다.
저는 아래와 같이 작업을 도와드립니다.
- 주제만 입력하면 목차부터 본문내용까지 자동 생성해 드립니다.
- 장문의 콘텐츠를 쉽고 빠르게 작성해 드립니다.
- 스토어에서 무료 캐시를 계정별로 1회 발급 받을 수 있습니다. 지금 바로 체험해 보세요!
이런 주제들을 입력해 보세요.
- 유아에게 적합한 문학작품의 기준과 특성
- 한국인의 가치관 중에서 정신적 가치관을 이루는 것들을 문화적 문법으로 정리하고, 현대한국사회에서 일어나는 사건과 사고를 비교하여 자신의 의견으로 기술하세요
- 작별인사 독후감
해캠 AI 챗봇과 대화하기
챗봇으로 간편하게 상담해보세요.
2025년 07월 29일 화요일
AI 챗봇
안녕하세요. 해피캠퍼스 AI 챗봇입니다. 무엇이 궁금하신가요?
10:03 오후