Advanced

Lekmäns delaktighet i rättskipningen - En utredning av argumenten för och emot det svenska nämndemannasystemet ur ett rättsutvecklingsperspektiv

Månsson, Edwina LU (2017) LAGF03 20172
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Förekomsten av juridiskt oskolade som ett inslag i den dömande verksamheten, är ett fenomen som existerar världen över. I Sverige har institutionen med s.k. nämndemän länge varit en del av rättssystemet. Dess rötter härstammar från det medeltida samhället, men systemet har under åren modifierats flertalet gånger och inflytandet på rättskipningen har varierat. Det huvudsakliga syftet och dess viktigaste funktion har dock uteslutande varit möjligheten till medborgarinflytande och demokratisk kontroll. Systemet har kunnat begränsa domstolarnas maktutövning gentemot folket. I tingsrätt består rätten i regel av tre
nämndemän och en juridiskt skolad ordförande. Allas röster väger lika tungt i rättssalen, vilket är en följd av den... (More)
Förekomsten av juridiskt oskolade som ett inslag i den dömande verksamheten, är ett fenomen som existerar världen över. I Sverige har institutionen med s.k. nämndemän länge varit en del av rättssystemet. Dess rötter härstammar från det medeltida samhället, men systemet har under åren modifierats flertalet gånger och inflytandet på rättskipningen har varierat. Det huvudsakliga syftet och dess viktigaste funktion har dock uteslutande varit möjligheten till medborgarinflytande och demokratisk kontroll. Systemet har kunnat begränsa domstolarnas maktutövning gentemot folket. I tingsrätt består rätten i regel av tre
nämndemän och en juridiskt skolad ordförande. Allas röster väger lika tungt i rättssalen, vilket är en följd av den rösträttsreform som infördes 1983.

Det finns åtskilliga argument som talar både för och emot nämndemannasystemet. Bland annat framhävs kritik mot att juridiskt okunniga deltar i rättskipningen, men intresset och vikten av medborgarnas inflytande och insyn i den dömande verksamheten korrelerar som en fördel. Systemet har under åren genomgått flera reformationer, bland annat kring hur valet av nämndemän ska gå till, vilka krav som ställs på att personen är lämplig för uppdraget och hur många ledamöter nämnden ska bestå av. Eftersom systemets långa historia i våra svenska
domstolar är av stor vikt för förståelsen kring motiven bakom, är en stor del av uppsatsen en historisk tillbakablick på dess framväxt och utveckling. Efter redogörelsen kring systemets bakgrund, följer en beskrivning av dagens nämndemannasystem. Avslutningsvis kommer flera av de viktigaste argumenten för och emot nämndemannasystemet beskrivas och
analyseras.

De argument som förespråkar nämndemannasystemets avskaffande, framstår många gånger som svaga och utan egentlig tyngd. Frågan är om det verkligen är tillräckligt att motivera systemets avskaffande, genom att enbart peka på mindre brister i systemet. Kan det i själva verket vara så att argumenten mot systemet gömmer vissa bakomliggande motiv? Uppsatsens huvudsakliga syfte är att försöka bemöta kritiken mot systemet och utreda om den har någon tyngd, eller om fördelarna med systemet helt enkelt är så värdefulla att nämndens avskaffande inte kan motiveras. (Less)
Abstract
The presence of non-judicially educated in courts is a recurring phenomenon all over the world. In Sweden, the institution with lay judges (in Sweden; nämndemän) has a long history in the judiciary. It originates from the medieval era, but has over the years been modified
several times and the institution’s influence over the administration of justice has varied over
the years. However, the purpose and function behind the institution has throughout history
been to include the influence from citizens, and to uphold democratic control over the courts.
The presence of lay judges has made it possible to scrutinize the exercise of power by the
courts. The district court generally consists of three lay judges and one legally educated
... (More)
The presence of non-judicially educated in courts is a recurring phenomenon all over the world. In Sweden, the institution with lay judges (in Sweden; nämndemän) has a long history in the judiciary. It originates from the medieval era, but has over the years been modified
several times and the institution’s influence over the administration of justice has varied over
the years. However, the purpose and function behind the institution has throughout history
been to include the influence from citizens, and to uphold democratic control over the courts.
The presence of lay judges has made it possible to scrutinize the exercise of power by the
courts. The district court generally consists of three lay judges and one legally educated
president. All parties have one vote each in the court room, a rule that originates from a
voting reform introduced in 1983.

There are several arguments for and against the panel of lay judges. For example, criticism
has been brought forward on the fact that non-judicially educated are a part of the
adjudication. However, the public interest of insight and influence serves as a corresponding
advantage. The institution has been through many reforms during the years, including; how
the election of lay judges should be executed, what requirements that are imposed on a
person’s suitability for the task, as well as how many members the panel should consist of.
Since the long history of the institution is of great importance for understanding the motives
behind it, a big part of this essay is a historic description of its emergence and development.
After a review of the institution’s background, a description of today’s panel of lay judges
will follow. In conclusion, several of the main arguments for and against the institution will
be reviewed and analysed.

The arguments about the institution’s abolishment, are in many ways rather weak and without
gravity. If it is enough to justify the instituion’s abolition by only pointing out minor
deficiencies is a question not that easily answered. Could it be possible that the arguments
against the institution of lay judges is in fact hiding some underlying motives? The main
purpose of this essay is therefore to attempt to respond to such criticism, as well as
investigate whether it is of any significance, or if the many benefits of the institution simply
are so valuable that the panel of lay judges should be preserved. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Månsson, Edwina LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20172
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Processrätt, Criminal procedure, Straffrätt, Nämndemän, Lay judges, Nämndemannasystemet
language
Swedish
id
8929743
date added to LUP
2018-02-06 12:03:18
date last changed
2018-02-06 12:03:18
@misc{8929743,
  abstract     = {The presence of non-judicially educated in courts is a recurring phenomenon all over the world. In Sweden, the institution with lay judges (in Sweden; nämndemän) has a long history in the judiciary. It originates from the medieval era, but has over the years been modified
several times and the institution’s influence over the administration of justice has varied over
the years. However, the purpose and function behind the institution has throughout history
been to include the influence from citizens, and to uphold democratic control over the courts.
The presence of lay judges has made it possible to scrutinize the exercise of power by the
courts. The district court generally consists of three lay judges and one legally educated
president. All parties have one vote each in the court room, a rule that originates from a
voting reform introduced in 1983.

There are several arguments for and against the panel of lay judges. For example, criticism
has been brought forward on the fact that non-judicially educated are a part of the
adjudication. However, the public interest of insight and influence serves as a corresponding
advantage. The institution has been through many reforms during the years, including; how
the election of lay judges should be executed, what requirements that are imposed on a
person’s suitability for the task, as well as how many members the panel should consist of.
Since the long history of the institution is of great importance for understanding the motives
behind it, a big part of this essay is a historic description of its emergence and development.
After a review of the institution’s background, a description of today’s panel of lay judges
will follow. In conclusion, several of the main arguments for and against the institution will
be reviewed and analysed.

The arguments about the institution’s abolishment, are in many ways rather weak and without
gravity. If it is enough to justify the instituion’s abolition by only pointing out minor
deficiencies is a question not that easily answered. Could it be possible that the arguments
against the institution of lay judges is in fact hiding some underlying motives? The main
purpose of this essay is therefore to attempt to respond to such criticism, as well as
investigate whether it is of any significance, or if the many benefits of the institution simply
are so valuable that the panel of lay judges should be preserved.},
  author       = {Månsson, Edwina},
  keyword      = {Processrätt,Criminal procedure,Straffrätt,Nämndemän,Lay judges,Nämndemannasystemet},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Lekmäns delaktighet i rättskipningen - En utredning av argumenten för och emot det svenska nämndemannasystemet ur ett rättsutvecklingsperspektiv},
  year         = {2017},
}