| Project/Area Number |
15K17191
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B)
|
| Allocation Type | Multi-year Fund |
|---|
| Research Field |
Sociology
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Tohoku Gakuin University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
KOMIYA TOMONE 東北学院大学, 経済学部, 准教授 (40714001)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2015-04-01 – 2019-03-31
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2018)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥3,640,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,800,000、Indirect Cost: ¥840,000)
Fiscal Year 2018: ¥780,000 (Direct Cost: ¥600,000、Indirect Cost: ¥180,000)
Fiscal Year 2017: ¥780,000 (Direct Cost: ¥600,000、Indirect Cost: ¥180,000)
Fiscal Year 2016: ¥910,000 (Direct Cost: ¥700,000、Indirect Cost: ¥210,000)
Fiscal Year 2015: ¥1,170,000 (Direct Cost: ¥900,000、Indirect Cost: ¥270,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | エスノメソドロジー / 会話分析 / ジェンダー / 性暴力 / 裁判員制度 / 裁判員評議 / 刑事司法におけるジェンダーバイアス |
|---|
| Outline of Final Research Achievements |
In this study, we examined the logical status of commonsense and its roles in legal reasoning through the conceptual analysis of court decisions and the conversation analysis of mock deliberations.
From the analysis of court decisions, we showed that the plausibility of “empirical rules” which professional judges use stems from its “temporal a priori status” and the critics to “gender bias” in criminal justice should be oriented not to the illogicality or empirical uncertainty of “empirical rule” but to the consequence of its use which forecloses the possible understanding of cases.
From the conversation analysis of mock deliberations, we showed the relationship between the types of knowledge which lay judges use and the sequential position in which lay judges give their opinions. Thus, we have to explore how the use of a particular type of knowledge constitute the intelligibility of actions in order to consider the role of commonsense in Saiban-in system.
|
| Academic Significance and Societal Importance of the Research Achievements |
2018年、強姦罪の強制性交等罪への改正がおこなわれ、その附帯決議には強制性交罪の「暴行又は脅迫」要件および準強制性交罪の「抗拒不能」要件について、専門的知見を踏まえた検討の必要性が記された。そこで想定されているのは心理学的・精神医学的知見であるが、「暴行」「脅迫」「抵抗」といった概念は社会成員が日常生活の中で用いるものであり、「同意」の理解もまたそうした概念使用のもとでおこなわれるものである。したがって、本研究が示したことは、まさにそうした諸概念が常識的知識として法的推論の内でいかに働くかを考察する上で不可欠のことがらであり、今後の刑法見直しに向けて重要な視点を提供しうるものである。
|
