| Project/Area Number |
19330017
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
Criminal law
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Osaka City University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
MISHIMA Satoshi Osaka City University, 大学院・法学研究科, 教授 (60281268)
|
|---|
| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
TAKAGI Kotaro 青山学院大学, 社会情報学部, 教授 (30272488)
SAIJO Miki 東京工業大学, 留学生センター, 教授 (90334549)
NOHARA Kayoko 東京工業大学, 留学生センター, 准教授 (90327312)
HONJO Takeshi 一橋大学, 大学院・法学研究科, 准教授 (60345444)
森本 郁代 関西学院大学, 法学部, 准教授 (40434881)
大塚 裕子 (財)計量計画研究所, 言語情報研究室, 研究員 (10419038)
守屋 克彦 東北学院大学, 法務研究科, 教授 (90328261)
|
|---|
| Co-Investigator(Renkei-kenkyūsha) |
OTSUKA Hiroko (財)計量計画研究所, 言語情報研究室, 研究員 (10419038)
TAKEUCHI Kazuhiro 大阪電気通信大学, 情報通信工学部, 准教授 (20440951)
MORIMOTO Ikuyo 関西学院大学, 法学部, 准教授 (40434881)
MORIYA Katsuhiko 東北学院大学, 大学院・法務研究科, 教授 (90328261)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2007 – 2009
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2009)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥19,760,000 (Direct Cost: ¥15,200,000、Indirect Cost: ¥4,560,000)
Fiscal Year 2009: ¥3,900,000 (Direct Cost: ¥3,000,000、Indirect Cost: ¥900,000)
Fiscal Year 2008: ¥7,670,000 (Direct Cost: ¥5,900,000、Indirect Cost: ¥1,770,000)
Fiscal Year 2007: ¥8,190,000 (Direct Cost: ¥6,300,000、Indirect Cost: ¥1,890,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | 刑事法学 / 刑事裁判 / 裁判員制度 / 国民の司法参加 / 評議 |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
Although there are huge gaps in legal knowledge and experience on trial between lay jurors and professional judges, they are required to have discussion together on equal terms during the deliberation under the mixed jury system. This study shows that it is extremely important to make the relevant information, the framework for fact-findings and sequence of discussion visible and known to all the members of the panel. In addition, a package of specific proposals has been proposed, based on the expertise in communication studies-the one to use sticky notes and charts, make live-recordings as well as make distinction as to four functions of utterances of the presiding judge.
|
