Advertisement

Quality of Justice and Lay Participation in the Light of Scientific Studies

  • Attila BadóEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 69)

Abstract

The study reveals the relationship between lay participation and the quality of justice by collecting classic arguments establishing lay participation in dispensing justice and subjecting them to critical analysis. A considerable number of arguments show a strong correlation with the image of quality and democratic justice. However, in the case of lay judiciary forms, the relationship between the goals set forth in arguments and their enforcement in practice can be detected to a different extent, although generally in a more modest way compared to legislative intent. What form of lay judiciary operates in a legal system and how it operates are generally more determined by legal historical myths pertaining to the institution than to any policy aimed at developing the quality of justice.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the project no. EFOP-3.6.2-16-2017-00007, entitled Aspects on the development of intelligent, sustainable and inclusive society: social, technological, innovation networks in employment and digital economy. The project has been supported by the European Union, co-financed by the European Social Fund and Hungarian budgetary sources.

References

  1. Anderson S (1990) Lay judges and jurors in Denmark. Am J Comp Law 38:839–864.  https://doi.org/10.2307/840614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Badó A (1996) Az angolszász típusú esküdtszék kritikai elemzése. Acta Univ Szeged Acta Juridica Polit 50:1–52Google Scholar
  3. Badó A (2000) Laikus bíráskodás és reprezentativitás: a ‘fair cross section’ doktrína. Acta Univ Szeged Acta Juridica Polit 58:7–14Google Scholar
  4. Badó A (2013) Az igazságszolgáltató hatalom függetlensége és a tisztességes eljárás. Pólay Elemér Alapítvány, SzegedGoogle Scholar
  5. Badó A (2015) A magyar ülnöki rendszer vizsgálataGoogle Scholar
  6. Badó A, Bencze M (2007) Reforming the Hungarian lay justice system. In: Cserne P (ed) Theatrum legale mundi: symbola Cs. Varga oblata. Szt. István Társulat, Budapest, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  7. Baldwin J, McConwille M (1983) Jury trials. Mod Law Rev 42:726–727Google Scholar
  8. Burgess P, Corby S, Latreille PL (2014) Lay judges and labor courts: a question of legitimacy. Comp Labor Law Policy J 35:191–215Google Scholar
  9. Casper G, Zeisel H (eds) (1979) Der Laienrichter im Strafprozess: vier empirische Studien zur Rechtsvergleichung. C.F. Müller Juristischer Verl, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  10. Clermont KM, Eisenberg T (1991) Trial by jury or judge: transcending empiricism. Cornell Rev 77:1124–1177Google Scholar
  11. Corey Z, Hans VP (2010) Japan’s new lay judge system: deliberative democracy in action?Google Scholar
  12. Darbyshire P (1997) An essay on the importance and neglect of the magistracy. Crim Law Rev 627–643Google Scholar
  13. Devlin P (1956) Trial by jury. Stevens&Sons Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Diamond SS (1990) Revising images of public punitiveness: sentencing by lay and professional English magistrates. Law Soc Inq 15(2)Google Scholar
  15. Goldbach TS, Hans VP (2014) Juries, lay judges, and trials. In: Bruinsma G, Weisburd D (eds) Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice. Springer, New York, New York, NY, pp 2716–2727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Igazságügyi Minisztérium (2015) ME/163/2015. Előterjesztés a Kormány részére az új büntetőeljárási törvény szabályozási elveirőlGoogle Scholar
  17. Iontcheva J (2003) Jury sentencing as democratic practice. Va Law Rev 311–383Google Scholar
  18. Ivković SK (2003) An inside view: Professional Judges’ and Lay judges’ support for mixed tribunals. Law Policy 25:93–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackson JD, Kovalev NP (2006) Lay adjudication and human rights in Europe. Colum J Eur L 13:83–124Google Scholar
  20. Kalven H, Zeisel H (1966) The American jury. Little Brown and Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  21. Klausa E (1972) Ehrenamtliche Richter: ihre Auswahl und Funktion, empirisch untersucht. Athenäum, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  22. Kulcsár K (1971) A népi ülnök a bíróságon: jogszociológiai tanulmány. Akadémiai K, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  23. Machura S (2000) Eine Kultur der Kooperation zwischen Schöffen und Berufsrichtern. Richter Ohne Rebe 111–116Google Scholar
  24. Machura S (2001) Fairness und Legitimität. Nomos VerlagsgesellschaftGoogle Scholar
  25. Malleson K (2006a) Rethinking the merit principle in judicial selection. J Law Soc 33:126–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Malleson K (2006b) Modernising the constitution: completing the unfinished business. In: Canivet G, Andenas M, Fairgrieve D (eds) Independence accountability, and the judiciary. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Malsch M, Findlay PM, Henham PR (2009) Democracy in the courts: lay participation in European criminal justice systems. Ashgate Publishing Limited, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  28. Peters K (1972) Fehlerquellen im Strafprozess: eine Untersuchung der Wiederaufnahmeverfahren in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Verlag C.F, Müller, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  29. Rennig C (1993) Die Entscheidungsfindung durch Schöffen und Berufsrichter in rechtlicher und psychologischer Sicht: empirische, rechtsdogmatische und psychologisch-theoretische Untersuchung zur Laienbeteiligung an der Strafgerichtsbarkeit. Elwert, MarburgGoogle Scholar
  30. Roberts P (2011) Does Article 6 of the European convention on human rights require reasoned verdicts in criminal trials? Hum Rights Law Rev 11:213–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sepe SM, Whitehead CK (2014) Paying for risk: bankers, compensation, and competition. Cornell Law Fac Work Pap 114:13–87Google Scholar
  32. Simon RJ, Marshall P (1972) The jury system. In: Nagel SS (ed) The rights of the accused in law and action. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 211–233Google Scholar
  33. Tausch A-M, Langer I (1971) Soziales Verhalten von Richtern gegenüber Angeklagten. Merkmale, Auswirkungen sowie Änderung durch ein Selbst-Training. Z Für Entwicklungspsychologie Pädagog Psychol 3:283–303Google Scholar
  34. Thaman SC (1997) Spain returns to trial by juryGoogle Scholar
  35. Thaman SC (1999) Europe’s new jury systems: the cases of Spain and Russia. Law Contemp Probl 62:233–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. de Tocqueville A (1983) A demokrácia Amerikában: válogatás. Gondolat, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  37. Vidmar N (1998) The performance of the American civil jury: an empirical perspective. Ariz Law Rev 40:849Google Scholar
  38. Villmow B, TerVeen H, Walkowiak A, Gerken J (1986) Die Mitwirkung von Laien in der (Jugend)-Strafgerichtsbarkeit: Rechtsprechung zwischen Professionalität und Bürgernähe. Integration von Strafrechts- und Sozialwissenschaften: Festschrift für Lieselotte Pongratz. Schweitzer, München, pp 306–361Google Scholar
  39. Walker S (1980) Popular justice: a history of American criminal justice. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Walker MA (1992) Sentencing studies: comment on diamond. Law Soc Inq 17:109–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Waye V (2003) Judicial fact-finding: trial by judge alone in serious criminal cases. Melb UL Rev 27:423Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawInstitute of Comparative Law, University of SzegedSzegedHungary

Personalised recommendations