| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 法律學研究所 === 105 === The issue of whether we should introduce the lay judge system into criminal justice system has been highly concerned. The systems of lay participation in criminal trials are mainly divided into two major types, “division of labor” and “cooperation”. The American and the English jury and the German mixed-court are the typical representatives of the two types respectively. The experiences of these countries worthily become our reference. The focus of this paper is the comparison of these two different lay judge systems. First of all, this paper introduces historical developments and evolutions of these systems. After that, the system designing and the differences between these systems are also discussed in this paper.
Furthermore, this paper explores the legitimate basis of these systems. Supporters argue that the systems can make a positive impact on judgments and on the social and political aspects. However, considering the experiences of countries with jury system or mixed court, we can find that “the expected functions” are not fully achieved. Therefore, it is hard to justify the system from a functional point of view. From an abstract point of view, these systems fail to meet the requirements of democracy principles and they are not good examples of democracy models. Thus, these arguments cannot provide a strong foundation for the lay judge systems.
After analyzing the purposes of constructing a lay judge system in Taiwan, this paper points out that such systems cannot contribute to resolving the crisis of judicial trust. Besides, the systems are inconsistent with democracy principles, so that the purpose of promoting the democratization of the judicial system is difficult to achieve. In addition, the operation of the systems might violate the constitution. Finally, the introduction of such systems might also generate a new dilemma. Dealing with these difficulties will be a big challenge.
|
|---|
