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.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Usually, The notion of criminal profiling(or criminal psychological profiling, offender profiling) evidence / criminal investigative method is explained like that; "some materials for use of criminal investigator or facts trier of criminal court that pertain many kins of information about an offender based on an examination of crime scene, etc."
A profiling has three basic goals: (1) social and psychological assessment of the offender, (2) the evaluation of belongings found in the suspected offender's possession, and (3) suggesting strategies for interviewing the suspected offender upon apprehension. And mainly, this technique(evidence) is used for the specific crimes such as motiveless or serial crime(for example, murder, rape and sexual assault and hate crime). The origin or background of profiling has been found in; First, criminals classification of criminologists who were in positive school. Second, progress of forensic science and crime scene analysis technique. Third, progress of psychology, statistics(especially social science about human behavior; Human Behavior Science) by many scholars.
So, there are two method in the technique of profiling; inductive criminal profiling and deductive criminal profiling. Inductive criminal profiling is made by analysis of many similar cases and statistics, and so on. And so, with information that are obtained like this materials, character type-matching process is performed by comparing with type-matching standard that has been made previously. this is a method for training of investigators, law enforcementors who are novices in profiling. On the other hand, deductive criminal profiling is made by evidence and crime scene analysis, victimology, and so on, with strict and positive confirming process. And this method is not perform on type-matching process and is a very confused mechanism that can be performed by experts(profilers).
In United States, generally, the admissibility of profiling evidence is not affirmed in criminal trials. But most Exceptionally, according to this condition.; (1) in the condition that reliability as scientific evidence can be affirmed by Daubert Standard(cf. Federal Regulation of Evidence 702), (2) in exceptional condition of character evidence or similar fact evidence(cf. Federal Regulation of Evidence 401~414), profiling evidence can be affirmed in trials. And, many kind of cases of federal courts and states of U.S. prove above condition of admissibility for profiling evidence.
A profiling has three basic goals: (1) social and psychological assessment of the offender, (2) the evaluation of belongings found in the suspected offender's possession, and (3) suggesting strategies for interviewing the suspected offender upon apprehension. And mainly, this technique(evidence) is used for the specific crimes such as motiveless or serial crime(for example, murder, rape and sexual assault and hate crime). The origin or background of profiling has been found in; First, criminals classification of criminologists who were in positive school. Second, progress of forensic science and crime scene analysis technique. Third, progress of psychology, statistics(especially social science about human behavior; Human Behavior Science) by many scholars.
So, there are two method in the technique of profiling; inductive criminal profiling and deductive criminal profiling. Inductive criminal profiling is made by analysis of many similar cases and statistics, and so on. And so, with information that are obtained like this materials, character type-matching process is performed by comparing with type-matching standard that has been made previously. this is a method for training of investigators, law enforcementors who are novices in profiling. On the other hand, deductive criminal profiling is made by evidence and crime scene analysis, victimology, and so on, with strict and positive confirming process. And this method is not perform on type-matching process and is a very confused mechanism that can be performed by experts(profilers).
In United States, generally, the admissibility of profiling evidence is not affirmed in criminal trials. But most Exceptionally, according to this condition.; (1) in the condition that reliability as scientific evidence can be affirmed by Daubert Standard(cf. Federal Regulation of Evidence 702), (2) in exceptional condition of character evidence or similar fact evidence(cf. Federal Regulation of Evidence 401~414), profiling evidence can be affirmed in trials. And, many kind of cases of federal courts and states of U.S. prove above condition of admissibility for profiling evidence.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 프로파일링 증거의 개념과 원리ㆍ구체적 활용기법
Ⅲ. 프로파일링 증거에 관한 미 판례사안의 검토
Ⅳ. 결론
참고문헌
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
연쇄강간범의 프로파일링 과정에 관한 연구
교정연구
2007 .01
-
범죄자 프로파일링: 과학인가 과장인가?
형사정책연구
2015 .09
-
범죄자 프로파일링 유용성 인식 평가:경찰관 대상 실증조사 결과를 중심으로
치안정책연구
2020 .01
-
범죄자 프로파일링의 증거 활용에 관한 연구
치안정책연구
2018 .01
-
연쇄성폭력범죄자 프로파일링과 프로파일링 제도 연구
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2009 .12
-
범죄자 프로파일링 관련 신문기사 내용분석
한국경찰연구
2011 .01
-
살인 범죄자 프로파일링
사회과학연구
2008 .06
-
中國 刑法上 犯罪過程에서의 犯罪形態
법학연구
2005 .06
-
프로파일링 효용성의 수사실무적 평가: 프로파일링 수사기법 사용자를 중심으로
경찰학연구
2020 .09
-
강력범죄에서의 범죄자 유형 분석기법(Criminal Profiling)의 도입에 관한 연구
한국공안행정학회보
2004 .01
-
디지털 증거의 증거능력에 관한 소고
한양법학
2015 .08
-
형사소송에서 디지털증거의 조사방법에 관한 입법론적 고찰-특히 민사소송의 경우와 비교하여-
비교형사법연구
2012 .01
-
우리나라 형사화해제도에 대한 검토
동아법학
2009 .08
-
형사특별법 정비방안(4) 특정경제범죄가중처벌법등에관한법률
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2008 .12
-
형사특별법의 입법구조와 이론적 기초
비교형사법연구
2012 .01
-
형사절차상 과학증거 활용과 관련한 시각의 전환 : 미국의 과학증거의 증거능력 및 증명력에 대한 논쟁을 중심으로
중앙법학
2012 .03
-
형사정책연구 30년의 성과와 과제(II) : 형사법 연구
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2019 .03
-
공공기관에서 개인정보의 이용과 통제 : 컴퓨터 프로필링 기법을 중심으로
한국사회와 행정연구
2002 .08
-
형사사법절차상 형사합의 관행의 실태분석과 제도화 방안
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2014 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
범죄자 프로파일링에 대한 인식과 발전 방향
박지선
,
최낙범
한국콘텐츠학회논문지
2012
.06
범죄프로파일링(Criminal Profiling)에 관한 실증적 연구 : 연쇄강간살인범에 대한 수사심리학적 기법(Liverpool)적용
김영오
,
윤종성
사회과학연구
2012
.12
살인 범죄자 프로파일링
홍성열
사회과학연구
2008
.06
연쇄성폭력범죄자 프로파일링과 프로파일링 제도 연구
김지영
,
박지선
,
박현호
형사정책연구원 연구총서
2009
.12
범죄자 프로파일링: 과학인가 과장인가?
남궁현
,
심희섭
형사정책연구
2015
.09
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2012-364-003957477