형사절차상 사회과학적 증거의 증명력과 증거능력에 대한 연구 - 미국의 논의에 대한 분석을 중심으로 -

Even social scientific evidence that hold low scientific value can be helpful to prove the fact in issue in the criminal process. It is not true that only science with high accuracy can be used in a court. Most of all, the Daubert-standards posited by the United States Supreme Court can be applied to a social scientific evidence to determine its admissibility. Some social sciences rely on the methodology commonly held in hard science. Therefore, the Daubert’s factors, such as testability, publication and peer review, error rate, general acceptance, should be taken into consideration to decide whether it is proper to admit a particular social scientific evidence in a court. It is necessary to consider the relevancy standard when the Daubert standards cannot be applied to a methodology of a scientific evidence in issue. In contrast to Daubert standrads, the relevancy standards indirectly assess validity of methodological aspects of a social scientific evidence. When a review of validity of a scientific evidence is put aside, the consideration of a scientific evidence will be placed on dynamics of a process. In this case, after considering all participants’ opinions in the process, the admissibility of the social scientific evidence can be determined with striking balance between probative value and unfair prejudice. In this sense, some clinical evidences, such as battered women syndrome and rape trauma syndrome, can be admitted to sufficiently support a female defendant’s right and to more clearly understand socio-psychological context of a rape victim.