DOI: 10.5279/dk-sa-dda-1473
title: Folkevalgte dommere, 1987
title: Danish Lay Judge System, 1987

description: Det danske lægdommersystem har været under konstant diskussion, siden Hother Hage i 1847 udgav sin bog ''De faste Statsdommere og Edsvorneretten''. En løfteparagraf om indførelse af nævninge kom ind i junigrundloven af 1849. Netop dette spørgsmål viste sig at være det mest kontroversielle i de følgende 70 års politiske kamp om udformningen af en retsplejelov.
        
        Siden er lægdommersystemet og dets anvendelsesområde ændret utallige gange - mest gennemgribende ved 1936-reformen med indførelse af domsmænd. Men også i den seneste tid er der foretaget væsentlige ændringer. Og blandt jurister og retspolitikere pågår til stadighed en ret skarp diskussion om lægdommersystemets, specielt nævningeinstitutionens, berettigelse.
        
        Et iøjnefaldende træk ved denne diskussion er, at den ikke inddrager lægdommerne selv. Det er forbløffende, så lidt der i alle disse år er kommet frem om, hvordan de oplever deres rolle, eller hvordan de ser på forskellige forslag om ændring af funktionsområde, styrkeforhold, beføjelser m.v.
        
        I de år, primærundersøgeren selv deltog direkte i lovgivningsarbejdet på dette område, afholdt Justitsministeriet således to konferencer, som delvis (1979) eller helt (1982) vedrørte lægdommernes rolle. Alle andre grupper med tilknytning til retssystemet var rigeligt repræsenteret - men ikke en eneste lægdommer. Forslag om vigtige ændringer af lægdommernes funktionsområde er før vedtagelse sendt til høring både her og der - men ikke hos lægdommere.
        
        Dette er baggrunden for, at primærundersøgeren har fundet det på sin plads at give lægdommerne mulighed for at give deres mening til kende.
        
        Formålet med denne undersøgelse har således primært været at afdække lægdommernes oplevelser og erfaringer samt deres syn på de spørgsmål vedrørende lægdommerfunktionen, som har indgået i de seneste års retspolitiske debat. Samtidig skulle materialet give mulighed for belysning af rekruttering og repræsentativitet samt af svarenes fordeling efter køn, alder, erhverv, partitilhørsforhold m.v.
        
        Der er ikke på forhånd opstillet hypoteser, som har skullet efterprøves ved undersøgelsen
description: The Danish lay judge system has been the subject of debate and discussion since Hother Hage in 1847 published the book 'De faste Statsdommere og Edsvorneretten' (The Permanent State Judges and the Lay Judges). A section promising future legislation on the introduction of a court sitting with a jury was entered into the Constitution of 1849, and this question turned out to be the most controversial one in the following 70 years' political dispute about the working out of an Administration of Justice Act.     #  Since then the lay judge system and its field of application have been changed numerous times - the most radical change being the one in connection with the 1936-reform which meant the introduction of lay assessors. Also in recent years considerable changes have been made, and an everlasting, rather keen debate is going on among jurists and politicians concerned with legal policy about the justification of the lay judge system, and, in particular, the jury system.     #  A significant feature of this debate is that it does not involve the lay judges themselves. It is amazing how little information is available after all these years regarding how these lay judges experience their own role, or their attitudes to various proposed changes of scope of function, balance of power, authority, etc.     #  Thus, during the years when the primary investigator participated directly in the legislative work in this field, the Ministry of Justice held two conferences which partly (in 1979) or entirely (in 1982) concerned the role of the lay judges. All the other groups with affiliation to the legal system were amply represented - but there was not one single lay judge. Proposals for essential changes of the scope of function of the lay judges were submitted to hearings everywhere - but not to the lay judges.     #  This is the reason why the primary investigator found it appropriate to make it possible for the lay judges to state their opinion.     #  Thus, the main purpose of this survey is to examine the experience of the lay judges as well as their opinion of the questions concerning the function of the lay judges which have formed part of the debate on legal policy in recent years. At the same time the material will open up the possibility of examining recruitment and representativity as well as the distribution according to sex, age, occupation, party affiliation, etc. of lay judges.     #  The primary investigator had not in advance put forward any hypotheses which had to be verified
description: Se abstract
description: See abstract