Aftenposten commentator: Farewell jury – Aftenposten

The jury’s demise has been on the cards for several years. Parti Tactical considerations have extended the life of the scheme which was introduced as far back as 1887.

Right has long been to remove the jury system in criminal cases in favor of meddomsrett but government comrades in Progress Party has been the opposite. Thus Right locked.

Now Anders Lange’s grandson turned – and with the Labour Party and the Christian Democrats on the bandwagon is the large majority in Parliament to bury the jury once and for all.

Large parts of the legal establishment gets it thus that they will. Referee Association has long been an opponent of the jury system; as has the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Among the lawyers have been divided views. Known defense attorneys Harald chart and Frode Sulland stands for example on either side. Sulland strong supporter of the jury; Table doubted himself away from it.

No justification.

The strongest objection to the jury system is that the ten medical men and women in the jury does not give reasons for its decision the question of guilt. A defendant can for example be acquitted in a well-reasoned judgment of the district court, but later judged with a simple yes-answers from the jury in the District Court.

Some have argued that it is inconsistent with the provisions of human rights on fair proceedings that the jury did not justify their stance. The Supreme Court has rejected.

In a judgment a few years ago the Supreme Court determined that there are mechanisms by jury system ensuring that defendants receive a fair trial in accordance with the requirements of the Human Rights and the UN Declaration on Social and Political Rights . The jury was able to continue his work as before.

Strengthening the rule of law.

Now it by all appearances end. It may be just fine. Although I have gone from being sworn supporter of the jury to have doubted me until the same stance as the parliamentary majority. I believe that a transition to meddomsrett with a strong presence of lay people would strengthen the rule of law.

A strong presence of lay judges must be a condition for closure of the jury system. This is also underlined by politicians who want to change the law, but here it may still be possible to new discussions.

When the Court of Appeal today set as meddomsrett, it is normally with three professional judges and four lay judges. Four judges are in my opinion too little when the total right to decide both guilt and possible sentencing.

The politicians will have to consider whether to put six, eight or ten judges in addition to three professional judges. The greater proportion of lay people, the greater the chance that the change is edible also for jury champions.

For one thing, most agree on:

Evidence evaluation is too serious for it to be left to lawyers alone.

Published: May 12. 2015 7:51 p.m.