Lay judges and government of law

Abstract

The article contains historical and comparative survey of many models of lay participation in judiciary and key problems with it. The first, it has given reasons for establishment and characteristic of work of jury in revolutionary France and mixed court in Germany. Further, it gives analisys' of development of question of jurors in Kingdom of Serbia and Yugoslavia. Among the other things, it points out the failure of mixed courts in Serbia because of intimidation of jurors. In communist's Yugoslavia, jurors were established to serve to the 'achievements of Revolution' which was the negation of principle of government of laws. Opposite to the law participation, there was/is professional Dutch criminal justice system. The article contains many aspects of lay participation in criminal adjudication: selection of jurors, control of their work, advantages and disadvantages, the cases of jury abolition. The author comes to the conclusion that any model of lay participation in criminal adjudication can't be in accordance to principle of 'government of laws and not of men'. Key requirements of modern justice are reasoned decisions which can be provided only by professional judges. All in all, it concludes that institution of lay participation should be abolished. Democratic principle in judiciary can be provided in some other, proper ways: by 'open justice' which includes general and expert public control of judges' work. After all, there is certain logic in the development of jury (and jurors) which points to its future solution. In the first phase, the jury was established; later, it was modified to mixed court. In the third, the last, phase, the lay participation in criminal adjudications will be abolished entirely.