|Abstract: ||Tarėjų instituto įgyvendinimas jau kuris laikas yra viešai aptarinėjama tema, dėl savo atliekamos funkcijos padedant užtikrinti demokratiškumo principus, teismo efektyvumą ir visuomenės pasitikėjimą teismų sistemos veikla. Todėl šios temos aktualumas aukštas ir nekvestionuojamas.
Šiame darbe analizuotos skirtingos visuomenės atstovavimo teismuose formos bei visuomenės įsitraukimo į teisingumo vykdymą galimybės, taip pat tarėjų vaidmuo teisminiame procese. Kartu aptariami keliami reikalavimai kandidatams ir rinkimo procesai įvairiose pasaulio valstybėse, apžvelgiami tarėjų instituto privalumai ir trūkumai, numatomi tarėjų instituto veiksmai priimant sprendimus kartu su profesionaliais teisėjais. Šio darbo pagrindinis tikslas įvertinti ir pagrįsti, ar šis institutas gali užtikrinti baudžiamojo proceso efektyvumą.
Nors Lietuva ir turėjo tarėjų institutą būdama Tarybų Sąjungos sudėtyje, tačiau neišsaugojo jokių tradicijų iki šių dienų. Įvertinus tokių užsienio valstybių kaip Norvegijos, Prancūzijos, Švedijos, Vokietijos tarėjų instituto modelius, pasižyminčias giliomis tradicijomis, nustatyta tarėjų instituto privalumai ir trūkumai, bei bylų rūšys, kuriose tarėjai dalyvauja dažniausiai. Atlikus lyginamąją analizę paaiškėjo, kad didžiausi privalumai atsiskleidė per visuomenės aspektą. Pastaroji tampa integruota į teisminio proceso vykdymą, taip užtikrinant demokratiškus teismus ir pasitikėjimą jais. Tarėjai, kaip nešališki visuomenės atstovai, gali pritaikyti savo gyvenimišką ir profesinę patirtį sprendžiant kompleksinius klausimus teismuose, taip ne tik užtikrindami efektyvumą, bet ir jį skatindami. Derėtų paminėti ir didėjantį skaidrumo užtikrinimo potencialą. Deja, tarėjų institutas pasižymi ir tam tikrais trūkumais, kurie gali pasireikšti tarėjų motyvacijos ir kompetencijos stoka.|
Lay judge is the person from the public, which is not required to have any law education or experience, he is working in the mixed board with professional judge and decides not only questions of facts but also applying the law. About Institute of Lay judges recently there are a lot of discussion's, and this is very relevant to this day, because Lithuania soon will have this institute again, which will not even ensure democracy but also can improve public trust in courts and trial process effectiveness. In 2016 October 11 Parliament of Lithuania with law scholars adopted Ministry of Justice prepared resolution „Institute of Lay judges in courts conception“. This institute should improve public trust in courts, so courts will be more democratic and open to public.
In this work were analyzed different forms of lay participation in courts, people opportunities and how people can involve their selves into justice making, also were analyzed what is the lay judge position in the trial process, what kind of requirements are in different countries to be lay judge, how are they being elected, what's the advantages and disadvantages of Institute of lay judges, and what can we expect from lay judges making decision with professional judge. This work main objective to determine do institute of lay judges can ensure criminal procedure effectiveness.
There are some lay participation in courts forms, most popular are Jury, Lay judge, and Peace court. Peace court the main difference from jury and lay judge is that lay people making analyzing cases and decisions without professional judges. Jury is most popular in common law countries. Institute of Lay judges most popular in continental law countries and came from Jury, on purpose to deal with problems of Jury institute herewith keeping opportunity for people to participate in making justice.
Lithuania even had Institute of Lay Judges when were part of Soviet Union, but never had old tradition. After comparative analysis of Institute of Lay judges in foreign countries like Germany, Norway, Sweden, France, where institute works for a long time, revealed advantages and disadvantages, in which cases lay people participating mostly, and what kind of requirements are for people who want to be lay judge. Mostly Lay Judges pay attention to cases which are mostly affecting wide public, because these cases are very sensitive and activates in everyone inner need to help reach justice, with inner motivation and responsibility. One of the main common requirement for lay judges is that person need to have flawless reputation also very important that he is not working in public service, he is not politician or directly connected with a case.
After analysis revealed that Institute of Lay judges most important advantages are that public is closer to the courts, thus ensures democracy and improving trust in courts. Lay judges are impartial public representative who can apply his personal and professional experience deciding questions in courts. Thus not only ensures effectiveness but also improves. Also this will improve transparency.
Lay judges are often considered better fact finders and law appliers than professional judges because they are closer to the people who are in the accused bench. Considering and analyzing cases lay judge inner belief about situation sometimes considered as educational material for professional judge to qualify given information, reliability of facts by public approved moral norms especially in cases of criminal negligence and reckless. There believed that Lay participation in courts will help to avoid corrupted state officials, judges and thus improves transparency. Because of corruption especially in state institutions, where justice is being made, causes public resentment and mistrust. Lay judges can Express their opinion in every question during the case, applying their professional experience which may be professional judge don’t have, because lay judge can be different profession people except professions which are specified by law like state official, politician etc. Thus in decision making will be heard public opinion and decision will not be made one-sided. Lay judges expected to be less trite than professional judges.
However Institute of lay judges also have disadvantages, one of the main are that lay judges are lack of competence. Because of that even minimal law ignorance can be prejudicial during the trial process. In this case there should be organized special courses, or training for beginners, to introduce prospective lay judges about fundamental laws about state, how law and procedure works. Furthermore because of lay judges there are feared that they can be too emotional in assessing facts, guilt and situation, thus they can not even react too emotional but every serious information, law can be left in the background.
Studies showed that lay judges facing difficulties when they need to separate questions about guilt and punishment. They also tend to acquit the accused people without use of high standards of evidence evaluation, because of fear to take responsibility for strict punishment or decide that accused is guilty.