SKANDINAVIJOS VALSTYBIŲ VISUOMENINIŲ TEISĖJŲ (TEISMŲ TARĖJŲ) IR (ARBA) PRISIEKUSIŲJŲ MODELIAI: PRIVALUMAI IR TRŪKUMAI

Abstract

Twenty-two EU member states, including Denmark, Sweden, and Finland, oblige some lay participation (lay judges/jury) in the administration of justice. However, the models of this institute differ among countries. Based on the analysis of lay participation models in Denmark, Sweden, and Finland, this article aims to point out and describe their advantages and disadvantages. To achieve this aim, qualitative research was carried out. The methods employed for data collection included thematic analysis and document selection. Document content analysis (i.e., the analysis of research papers, scientific literature on the topic, the Constitutions of Denmark, Sweden, and Finland, and other international and national legislation) was applied for data processing, and the methods of a dogmatic and comparative analysis were employed for data analysis. The findings of the research disclose that lay judges and jurors are ordinary citizens who work together with legal judges to decide several different types of criminal cases in the Danish and Swedish district and regional courts. Meanwhile, Sweden also has this institute in civil and administrative cases. Finland has only lay judges in criminal cases. This article is divided into four sections: the first section discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the Danish model; the second outlines the Swedish model; and the third describes the Finnish model. The last section compares these models and provides a discussion on the issue. Finally, the article provides conclusions based on the analysis of scientific sources and documents, and the results.