(Un)necessary lay participation in administration of justice nowadays: if so, in what form and to what extent?
LTReikšminiai žodžiai: Teisėjai visuomenės atstovai (mišrus tribunolas); Prisiekusiųjų teismas (prisiekusieji); Europos Sąjungos valstybių narių Konstitucijos; Visuomenės atstovų dalyvavimo forma ir mastas; Visuomenės atstovų dalyvavimo poreikis šiais laikais. Keywords: Lay judges (mixed tribunal); Jury trial (juries/jurors); Constitutions of European Union member states; The form and extent of Lay Participation; The need of Lay Participation nowadays.
ENThe confrontations were common throughout the history between those who had argued that a non-lawyer judiciary threatens the integrity and independence of the law and those who had maintained that lay persons on courts keep the judiciary closer and more accountable to the people. The discussions on the issue are still taking place around the world. The second wave of global judicial reform is linked to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The reform in Poland began in 1995, which was related to the weakening participation of lay judges (Polish: ławników) in judicial panels. Lithuania has not introduced Lay Participation in the administration of justice yet. The aim of this paper is to review Lay Participation in the European Union in order to assess the need for lay judges/juries in the administration of justice nowadays and to define the most optimal form and extent of Lay Participation. The qualitative research has been carried out. The methods for data collection employed have been thematic analysis and document selection, for data processing – document content analysis, and a dogmatic and comparative data analysis. Of the fourteen EU countries where the importance of Lay Participation institute is established at the highest (constitutional) level, five fail to define their form and extent in their Constitution (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Italy, Poland, Slovenia). The Constitutions of seven EU countries set out the form and extent of their involvement in the administration of justice (Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Spain, Portugal), where the form is juries/jurors, and the extent is criminal proceedings. In two countries, Croatia and Slovakia, the extent is not defined, only the form, respectively, juries/jurors and lay judges. However, constitutional regulation does not necessarily work in practice.The form of jury trial is more appropriate nowadays than the form of lay judges (mixed tribunals) for Lay Participation. Juries/jurors’ form of Lay Participation may be modified and adapted to the justice system of each state. It is important that the powers of such lay persons are limited. In this way, an unprofessional approach would be avoided where knowledge of the law is required, i.e., on the qualification and punishment of criminal offenses. The guilt is related to the question of fact, therefore, the life experiences of lay persons could be useful here, if necessary, deciding together with the professional judge. The other form, the institute of lay judges (mixed tribunals) is criticized because their participation in the increasingly complex legal systems with increasingly sophisticated assessments is no longer in keeping with the times. It is recommended to establish jury trial only in criminal proceedings of resonance cases in the first instance. [From the publication]
