Nämndemän - nödvändiga i en modern rättsstat? En analys av lekmannadomares funktion i rättsskipningen ur ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv
Sammanfattning: Jurymen are legally uneducated laymen judges who participate in legal disputes in both the general courts and the administrative courts, together with one or several legally educated judges. The existence of laymen judges in the Swedish courts have a long and shifting tradition. At first, they were used as evidence during the Middle Ages. Today, the jurymen are permanent members of the court as a judge. The historical evolution and tradition are two of the key factors to understand the regulation of Swedish jurymen today. An important democratic legal principle is that every individual is entitled to a fair trial in front of an independent and impartial court. It can be questioned whether jurymen, who are elected through a political procedure, can remain as independent and impartial as the legally qualified judges or if they contribute to jeopardize the impartiality of the administration of justice, due to their lack of legal education and furthermore because of their political appointment. Whether laymen judges contribute with a higher degree of legal certainty and public insight is frequently debated. During the 21st Century, suggestions have been made in several Swedish legal preparatory works, that the use of jurymen should be decreased and partly abolished but none of the suggested changes has yet to be legislated. The Finnish jurymen system has in modern time been reworked in a faster pace than the Swedish, with stricter rules regarding the jurymen’s suitability and with several reductions of the use of jurymen in the courtroom. This essay will therefore research the Swedish jurymen system with a comprehensive analysis of its pros and cons given its historical origin, the law of today and by doing a comparative study of the Finnish jurymen system.
HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA UPPSATSEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)