Nämndemännen är en sorgesam historia. De är politiskt tillsatta outbildade personer som utgör en uppenbar risk för rättssäkerheten.
Nu föreslår en ny utredning åtminstone ett steg i rätt riktning – färre nämndemän, färre politiskt tillsatta sådana och inga nämndemän i vare sig hovrätt eller kammarrätt.
Utredaren vill framför allt bredda rekryteringen till nämndemannakåren. Tanken att man inte ska behöva tillhöra ett politiskt parti för att kunna bli nämndaman är förstås god. Men inte god nog.
Jag anser att våra domstolar helt ska besättas med jurister, inte lekmän – och i synnerhet inte politiskt tillsatta lekmän. Det ska vara välutbildade och kunniga personer som dömer. Punkt slut.
I Norge har de domstolsjury och i Storbritannien och USA är det ett arv från vikingarna i England. För libertarianska aktivister är nullifiering av kränkande lagar ett omtyckt verktyg. Se tex:
http://fija.org/
Ja, självklart ska det vara eliten direkt liksom. Jag menar om jag skadat foten eller huvudet så måste jag ju ha tillgång till en riktig läkare och/eller sjuköterska på pronto inte sant? Vad är skillnaden?
Mvh Jan Saxman
Så herr Saxman menar att det inte gör så mycket om det döms lite tokigt i tingsrätten eftersom utbildade jurister ändå kan ändra domslutet i hovrätt och HD? Låt oss hoppas, för din skull, att du aldrig behöver bli oskyldigt anklagad för något och få din framtid avgjord av slumrande och ointresserade nämndemän.
Länge sedan jag läste så auktoritetstrogna "liberaler". Är det ingen som tror att "eliten" av jurister kan vara lika ointresserade eller maktmissbrukande?
"The question here arises, Whether the barons and the people intended that those peers (the jury) should be mere puppets in the hands of the king, exercising no opinion of their own as to the intrinsic merits of the accusations they should try, or the justice of the laws they should be called on to enforce? Whether those haughty and victorious barons, when they had their tyrant king at their feet, gave back to him his throne, with full power to enact any tyrannical laws he might please, reserving only to a jury…the contemptible and servile privilege of ascertaining, (under the dictation of the king, or his judges, as to the laws of evidence), the simple fact whether those laws had been transgressed? Was this the only restraint, which, when they had all power in their hands, they placed upon the tyranny of a king, whose oppressions they had risen in arms to resist? Was it to obtain such a charter as that, that the whole nation had united, as it were, like one man, against their king? Was it on such a charter that they intended to rely, for all future time, for the security of their liberties? No. They were engaged in no such senseless work as that. On the contrary, when they required him to renounce forever the power to punish any freeman, unless by the consent of his peers, they intended those peers should judge of, and try, the whole case on its merits, independently of all arbitrary legislation, or judicial authority, on the part of the king. In this way they took the liberties of each individual — and thus the liberties of the whole people — entirely out of the hands of the king, and out of the power of his laws, and placed them in the keeping of the people themselves. And this it was that made the trial by jury the palladium of their liberties.
The trial by jury, be it observed, was the only real barrier interposed by them against absolute despotism. Could this trial, then, have been such an entire farce as it necessarily must have been, if the jury had had no power to judge of the justice of the laws the people were required to obey? Did it not rather imply that the jury were to judge independently and fearlessly as to everything involved in the charge, and especially as to its intrinsic justice, and thereon give their decision, (unbiased by any legislation of the king,) whether the accused might be punished? The reason of the thing, no less than the historical celebrity of the events, as securing the liberties of the people, and the veneration with which the trail by jury has continued to be regarded, notwithstanding its essence and vitality have been almost entirely extracted from it in practice, would settle the question, if other evidences had left the matter in doubt. " – Lysander Spooner
Anonym: Hur fanta läser du egentligen? Jag är ju EMOT nämndemän oavsett om de är moderater, islamister eller skinnbollar. Tingsrätten ska bara ha utbilade jurister precis som akuten bara ska ha legitimerade sköterskor och läkare. Klart?
/Janne Saxman