Jurister och det allmänna rättsmedvetandet – En idékritisk och empirisk undersökning
Sammanfattning: It is often claimed in the public debate that the legal expertise does not respect the public’s sense of justice. This is particularly common regarding judges’ opin-ions in criminal cases concerning crimes of violent or sexual nature. This thesis empirically investigates if the sense of justice of the legal expertise deviates from that of the public. This is done through repeating a previous study done on the publics’ sense of justice on law students at Lund University. The study finds that law students in a statistically significant way deviates from the public, by advocating for deprivation of liberty to a larger extent regarding a case of super market robbery, while advocating for deprivation of liberty to a lesser extent in a case of drug trafficking. The sentences advocated by the law students are generally shorter. No statistically significant effects of the education as such are measured and the conclusion is drawn that the deviating opinions are most readily explained by processes of selection to the program. The study is included in a critical analysis of the concept of the public’s sense of justice, a concept referenced in precedents, jurisprudence and legislative history. In the analysis the argument is put fourth that the occurrences of these references indicate a need among the legal expertise to seemingly derive personal opinion from an external source, even if it is vague, something that is questionable from the perspective of rule of law. Instead, arguments based in clearly formulated but personally held values are favored when the sources of law supply insufficient guidance, something that in return places new demands on the tools that need to be supplied in law school.
HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA UPPSATSEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)