搜索
LayAdjudicationinEuropeanCountriesMostEuropeancountrieshavesomeformoflayparticipationinthetrialofcases.Thischapterexaminesthewayscitizenstakepartintheadjudicationofcriminalcasesinthefollowingcountries:Denmark,Germany,EnglandandWales,BelgiumandtheNetherlands.Itexplainshowtheselectionofthelayparticipantsisconducted,whattheirtasksareandwhattheirinvolvementencompassesinpracticeduringtheprocess.Onlycriminallawisconsideredinthischapter,withtheexceptionoftheNetherlands,whereotherlegalproceduresallowingfordirectinputbycitizensarediscussedaswell.FurthersectionsofthischapterpresentabriefsketchoflayinvolvementinanumberofotherEuropeancountries,includingsomefromtheformerCommunistbloc.BelgiumBelgiumintroduceditsjurysystemunderFrenchinfluenceandtheideasoftheEnlightenment.Article150oftheBelgianConstitutionstatesthatcriminalcases,amongothers,mustbedecidedbyjuries.ItistheBelgianHofvanAssisenthattriescaseswiththehelpofajury.Thiscourtdoesnotsitpermanentlybutiscalledtogethereachtimeacourtisneededtotryacasethatmustbedealtwithbyajury.Eachofthe10BelgianprovinceshasaHofvanAssisenandBrusselshastwo(oneinDutch,oneinFrench).Thiscourtiscomposedofthreeprofessionaljudgesand12jurors.ThecasesthataretriedbytheHofvanAssisenarecrimesforwhichthemaximumpenaltyisatleastfiveyearsimprisonment.Inprinciple,mostcrimescoveredbythiscriterioncanbe‘correctionalized’,whichmeansthattheycanbetriedbyacourtwithoutajury.Inpracticenowadaysonlythemostseriouscrimes,suchasmurder,aretriedbyajurycourt(deRoos2006).TasksThetaskofthejuryistodecideonthedefendant’sguilt.Thebasisforthisdecisionisaquestionnaire.Thejuryisonlyallowedtoanswer‘yes’or‘no’tothequestions.Therearetwotypesofquestion:first,thoseaboutthecrimeswithwhichthedefendantischarged,suchaswhetherthedefendantisguiltyoftheallegedcrimeandwhatlegalqualificationwouldapply.Thesecondtypeofquestioncoversthosethatariseduringthetrialofthecase,forexamplerelatingtomitigatingoraggravatingcircumstances,orthepresenceofcertainmental34disorders.Jurymembersareallowedtoaskquestionsduringthecourtsession,butnotmanyofthemmakeuseofthispower.Asisthecaseforalljuries,itisforbiddentogiveanysignofone’sconclusionsregardingthedefendant’sguiltorinnocenceduringthecourtsession.Ifamemberofajurydoessoinspiteofthisprohibition,heorshecanbechallengedandmayhavetobereplaced.Votingonthedefendant’sguilttakesplaceinsecretwithouttheprofessionaljudgesattending.Whenthevotesareequallydividedbetweenguiltyandnot-guilty,thedefendantisacquitted.Incaseonlyasmallmajority(sevenjurors)findsthedefendantguilty,thethreeprofessionaljudgeshavetogivetheiropinionaswell.Whentwoofthemdonotagreewiththosesevenjurors,thedefendantisacquitted.InBelgium,asinFrance,convictionintimeisthebasisforthejury’sjudgementaboutthedefendant’sguilt.Eachindividualmemberofthejuryhastobepersonallyconvincedastothedefendant’sguiltorinnocence.TheBelgianCodeofCriminalProcedurestatesthatjurorsarenotallowedtogivereasonsfortheirjudgementaboutwhethertheevidenceissufficient.Theyshouldconsiderthequestionsthathavetobeanswered,andconsulttheirconscience,insilence.Therearenospecificrulesofevidencethatshouldbefollowedforreachingadecisionastothedefendant’sguilt.Juryverdictsthusdonotcontainthereasonsonwhichtheyarebased.Incontrast,decisionsaboutthesentenceincludearationale.Thejuryandtheprofessionaljudgescooperateindecidingaboutthesentence.Thisdecisionismadebymajorityvote.Theyoungestmemberofthejurygiveshisorheropinionfirstandthepresidentisthelastonetodoso.Ajurydecisionisnotsubjecttoappeal.Incaseofafactuallyincorrectdecision,however,thecasecanbebroughtbeforeanewjury.Thatisonlypossibleintheeventthatthedefendantisfoundguiltyoftheallegedcrime.Thehighlyunusualdecisiontodothisisuptotheprofessionaljudges.Furthermore,thecasecanbesenttoanewHofvanAssisenifanappealtotheCourtofCassationhasbeengranted.TheCourtofCassation,however,canonlydealwithlegalandproceduralmattersanddoesnotreinvestigatethefactualmeritsofthecase.SelectionEveryfouryearscandidatesforjurydutyareselectedrandomlybytheprovincesinBelgium.ThelistthuscomposedissenttothepresidentoftheDistrictCourtinthecapitalofeachprovince.Thepresidentisresponsibleforthedefinitivelistthatisdrawnup.Specialattentionispaidtoensuringanequalrepresentationofpeoplewithacertainlevelofeducationandthosewithout.Jurymembersmustmeetcertainrequirements:theymustbebetween30and60yearsofage,abletoreadandwriteandpossessBelgiannationality.TheymustliveintheprovincewheretheHofvanAssisensits.Atleastonemonthbeforeajurytrial30ormorecandidatesforjurydutyareselectedrandomly(SneldersandHeuvelmans2007).Onthefirst35dayofthejurytrialthesepeoplecanasktobeexcused.Acceptablereasonsforexcuse,presentedbythecandidatesthemselves,mayincludepersonalorfamilyreasons,orreasonsthathavetodowithone’sjoborotheroccupation.Prosecutionanddefencecanbothchallengesixto12candidateswithoutgivingreasonsforit(peremptorychallenges).Amongthegroundsfordisqualificationbythecourtsonitsowninitiativearethoseofnotbeingofgoodmoralstanding,beingamemberoftheSenateortheParliament,beingajudgeorreligiousleader,orservinginthearmy.RepresentativenessOnlyas