인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
The popularity of the CSI series on TV makes people think that science prevails in every set of criminal investigation and it gives the key to solve crime mysteries.
The popular culture gives illusion that even one criminal cannot escape from the web of science as long as CSI agents are able to comb through the crime scene. However,the reality is somewhat different from what is on TV. Criminals do flee away without leaving any trace behind and crime scenes are not the perfect places to collect DNA evidence and other supporting evidence. Some DNA evidence might be partial and tainted and there is possibility where science has not advanced yet contary to the public belief. Some scholar noted that “the fact that someone’s DNA evidence found at the crime scene only puts the person at the scene. It does not mean that s/he is the person who committed the Crime”Besides DNA evidence, CCTV has become one of the most important tool to crack down crimes. We often use CCTV footage to identify suspects and verify what really happened at the crime scene. Although there has been a great concern that CCTV invades people’s privacy, it has prevailed that CCTV is one of the necessary evils. However putting too much trust on CCTV footage might blind justice because as long as there are human factors involved in dealing with CCTV evidence there is a room for error. In the future, computer is going to able to identify suspects out of CCTV footage. However, until such remarkable technological advance becomes reality, human eyes with fundamental flaws will be the yardstick of judgment when it comes to identify suspects.
Considering what has been said is all true, what would you do if the only piece of evidence, CCTV footage, to prove crimes is missing while only testimonial evidence provided by whom watched the footage is left? Can you trust the eye witness testimony who only saw the crime scene via CCTV? Is there any reason to equate the Testimony with the actual testimony of whom saw the crime scene without any help fro science such as CCTV? Many questions remain unanswered on that. At the moment, the Korean Supreme Court seems to note that as long as we can trust the testimony of who watched the CCTV footage, the admissibility and probative force of such testimony can be acknowledged. I think such view leaves many doubtful questions unanswered. Most of all the main question will be how much we can trust eye witness testimony when there is no way to prove or disprove it.
Science has become one of the most important tools to verify whether the charged crime was ever committed by the accused. However there is a human factor to consider even if we try to deny it. It is neither possible nor desirable to get rid of the human factor to it. It is necessary to be careful when judges need to make a decision only based upon eye witness testimony.
#증거능력
#증명력
#최량증거의 원칙
#범인 식별 증거
#수사보고서
#CCTV
#Admissibility of Evidence
#Probative Force of Evidence
#the Best Evidence Rule
#the Original Evidence
상세정보 수정요청해당 페이지 내 제목·저자·목차·페이지정보가 잘못된 경우 알려주세요!
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌
참고문헌 신청최근 본 자료
