Advanced

Nämndvärt inflytande - Motiveringen av nämndemannasystemet i sin historiska kontext

Renell, Erik LU (2018) LAGF03 20181
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I svenska domstolar idag deltar ofta lekmän i dömandet, s.k. nämndemän. De är juridiskt oskolade och saknar lagfarenhet. Nämndemannasystemets historiska spår går att följa mycket långt tillbaka i tiden, och detsamma gäller motiveringen bakom systemet.

Redan under 1200-talet växte en nämndprocess fram. Nämnden var bl.a. ett sätt att ge domstolarna legitimitet hos folket och skydda bönderna mot rättsövergrepp. Vid denna tid var nämnden mer ett bevismedel för parterna, något som dock kom att förändras.

Under 1500- och 1600-talet ökade nämndens inflytande betydligt även om det varierade mellan olika häradsrätter. Runt 1650 vände utvecklingen och nämnden tappade istället merparten av sin makt. Dess plats togs av välutbildade yrkesdomare... (More)
I svenska domstolar idag deltar ofta lekmän i dömandet, s.k. nämndemän. De är juridiskt oskolade och saknar lagfarenhet. Nämndemannasystemets historiska spår går att följa mycket långt tillbaka i tiden, och detsamma gäller motiveringen bakom systemet.

Redan under 1200-talet växte en nämndprocess fram. Nämnden var bl.a. ett sätt att ge domstolarna legitimitet hos folket och skydda bönderna mot rättsövergrepp. Vid denna tid var nämnden mer ett bevismedel för parterna, något som dock kom att förändras.

Under 1500- och 1600-talet ökade nämndens inflytande betydligt även om det varierade mellan olika häradsrätter. Runt 1650 vände utvecklingen och nämnden tappade istället merparten av sin makt. Dess plats togs av välutbildade yrkesdomare från landets nybildade juridiska fakulteter.

Under 1800-talet diskuterades lekmännens plats i domstolarna i flera utredningar. Många av 1800-talets resonemangen går att återfinna i utredningar som behandlar frågan under 1900-talet. Mycket vikt lades vid att nämndemannasystemet ökade allmänhetens förtroende för domstolarna. Detta och andra argument motiverade en kraftig ökning av nämndens inflytande; ett inflytande som nämndemännen har än idag.

Förtroendeargumentet anförs under 2010-talet som det viktigaste, och egentligen det enda som kan motivera systemets kvarvarande. Många argument som haft stor betydelse i den nära historien nämns däremot inte.

Vid en jämförelse av dagens argument för nämndemannasystemet med det som historiskt motiverat institutet, märks många likheter. De mest centrala argumenten har nästan varit desamma i 800 år, trots att rättsväsendet i övrigt har förändrats på många sätt. Denna övriga förändring gör att argumenten borde granskas mer kritiskt. (Less)
Abstract
In Swedish courts the judge is often accompanied by laymen, in Swedish referred to as nämndemän. The history of these layman judges stretches far back, and the same goes for the justification of the system.

The first use of nämndemän can be found as early as in the thirteenth century. They gave legitimacy to the courts and were seen as a way to protect the locals from abuse of justice. At this time the laymen were more a means of testimony than actual judges, but this changed over the following centuries.

During the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century the influence of the laymen increased considerably, although local variance was common. Around 1650 this development reversed. The laymen lost most of their... (More)
In Swedish courts the judge is often accompanied by laymen, in Swedish referred to as nämndemän. The history of these layman judges stretches far back, and the same goes for the justification of the system.

The first use of nämndemän can be found as early as in the thirteenth century. They gave legitimacy to the courts and were seen as a way to protect the locals from abuse of justice. At this time the laymen were more a means of testimony than actual judges, but this changed over the following centuries.

During the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century the influence of the laymen increased considerably, although local variance was common. Around 1650 this development reversed. The laymen lost most of their previously gained influence as well educated and professional judges from the newly founded faculties of law at the Swedish universities entered the courts.

During the nineteenth century several travail prépartoire discussed the system with laymen judges and much of the reasoning remained the same during the twentieth century. Particular significance was given to the fact that laymen increased the people’s trust in the courts. This, amongst other arguments, motivated a substantial increase of their influence, which has remained since.

This argument of trust has in the recent years been brought up as the main reason to keep the system with laymen judges. Several of the arguments that historically have been of importance, are however not mentioned.

At a comparison between the arguments of today with the reasons that historically motivated the system, many similarities can be noted. The most central arguments have been almost the same for 800 years, despite the major changes the legal system as a whole has undergone. This change implies that the arguments of today should be critically reviewed, since they may no longer be relevant. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Renell, Erik LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20181
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
rättshistoria, processrätt, nämndemän
language
Swedish
id
8941385
date added to LUP
2018-07-15 13:42:00
date last changed
2018-07-15 13:42:00
@misc{8941385,
  abstract     = {In Swedish courts the judge is often accompanied by laymen, in Swedish referred to as nämndemän. The history of these layman judges stretches far back, and the same goes for the justification of the system.
	
The first use of nämndemän can be found as early as in the thirteenth century. They gave legitimacy to the courts and were seen as a way to protect the locals from abuse of justice. At this time the laymen were more a means of testimony than actual judges, but this changed over the following centuries.

During the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century the influence of the laymen increased considerably, although local variance was common. Around 1650 this development reversed. The laymen lost most of their previously gained influence as well educated and professional judges from the newly founded faculties of law at the Swedish universities entered the courts.	

During the nineteenth century several travail prépartoire discussed the system with laymen judges and much of the reasoning remained the same during the twentieth century. Particular significance was given to the fact that laymen increased the people’s trust in the courts. This, amongst other arguments, motivated a substantial increase of their influence, which has remained since.

This argument of trust has in the recent years been brought up as the main reason to keep the system with laymen judges. Several of the arguments that historically have been of importance, are however not mentioned.

At a comparison between the arguments of today with the reasons that historically motivated the system, many similarities can be noted. The most central arguments have been almost the same for 800 years, despite the major changes the legal system as a whole has undergone. This change implies that the arguments of today should be critically reviewed, since they may no longer be relevant.},
  author       = {Renell, Erik},
  keyword      = {rättshistoria,processrätt,nämndemän},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Nämndvärt inflytande - Motiveringen av nämndemannasystemet i sin historiska kontext},
  year         = {2018},
}