A Study of Lay Participation in Criminal Trials—Focusing on Jury System and Mixed-Court System

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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yi-Ping Hou, 侯憶萍
Other Authors: Chih-Jen Hsueh
Format: Others
Language:zh-TW
Published: 2017
Online Access:http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/9du887
id ndltd-TW-105NTU05194089
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-TW-105NTU051940892019-05-15T23:39:40Z http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/9du887 A Study of Lay Participation in Criminal Trials—Focusing on Jury System and Mixed-Court System 人民參與審判制度之研究—以陪審制與參審制之比較為中心 Yi-Ping Hou 侯憶萍 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. Chih-Jen Hsueh 薛智仁 2017 學位論文 ; thesis 140 zh-TW
collection NDLTD
language zh-TW
format Others
sources NDLTD
description 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.
author2 Chih-Jen Hsueh
author_facet Chih-Jen Hsueh
Yi-Ping Hou
侯憶萍
author Yi-Ping Hou
侯憶萍
spellingShingle Yi-Ping Hou
侯憶萍
A Study of Lay Participation in Criminal Trials—Focusing on Jury System and Mixed-Court System
author_sort Yi-Ping Hou
title A Study of Lay Participation in Criminal Trials—Focusing on Jury System and Mixed-Court System
title_short A Study of Lay Participation in Criminal Trials—Focusing on Jury System and Mixed-Court System
title_full A Study of Lay Participation in Criminal Trials—Focusing on Jury System and Mixed-Court System
title_fullStr A Study of Lay Participation in Criminal Trials—Focusing on Jury System and Mixed-Court System
title_full_unstemmed A Study of Lay Participation in Criminal Trials—Focusing on Jury System and Mixed-Court System
title_sort study of lay participation in criminal trials—focusing on jury system and mixed-court system
publishDate 2017
url http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/9du887
work_keys_str_mv AT yipinghou astudyoflayparticipationincriminaltrialsfocusingonjurysystemandmixedcourtsystem
AT hóuyìpíng astudyoflayparticipationincriminaltrialsfocusingonjurysystemandmixedcourtsystem
AT yipinghou rénmíncānyǔshěnpànzhìdùzhīyánjiūyǐpéishěnzhìyǔcānshěnzhìzhībǐjiàowèizhōngxīn
AT hóuyìpíng rénmíncānyǔshěnpànzhìdùzhīyánjiūyǐpéishěnzhìyǔcānshěnzhìzhībǐjiàowèizhōngxīn
AT yipinghou studyoflayparticipationincriminaltrialsfocusingonjurysystemandmixedcourtsystem
AT hóuyìpíng studyoflayparticipationincriminaltrialsfocusingonjurysystemandmixedcourtsystem
_version_ 1719151563829673984