What is highlighted, for example, is that jurors have not been sufficiently attentive to what is said and happens in the courtroom, that they have shown bias or made statements on social media that raise questions about their impartiality, says Linnea Olander, the project manager for the review.
According to the review, this is partly due to a lack of knowledge about what the role requires. Jurors receive only a short introductory training course, lasting between one and eight hours.
Training too short
The Swedish National Audit Office’s assessment is that this is insufficient.
They have the same responsibility for the decisions made, and their votes carry just as much weight as those of the professional judges. So they play a major role in sentencing, says Olander.
The training courses leave no room for discussion or reflection and are more like lectures.
They receive practical information about the court, as well as about issues such as confidentiality, conflicts of interest, their role in judging, and what can and cannot be taken into account. So a lot of material has to be squeezed into this short training course.
Crimes go undetected
The review also shows that the courts’ ability to check jurors against police records is limited. Checks are carried out before a new term of office, but not on an ongoing basis, meaning that any crime committed after a juror takes office will go undetected.
Another shortcoming is that the goal of having jurors reflect the population in terms of age, gender, ethnic background and profession has not been achieved. In the long run, this is considered likely to reduce confidence in the justice system.
Lay judges are older on average than the population as a whole, and a smaller proportion were born abroad, says Linnea Olander.
A total of approximately 8,100 lay judges serve in the courts.
The National Courts Administration is recommended, among other things, to:
+ develop training for lay judges
+ recommend a minimum length for training courses
+ ensure that targeted communications reach underrepresented groups and nominating bodies.
The National Audit Office assesses that it is difficult to achieve a representative composition of lay judges that reflects the population under the current system. If the government wants to change the system, an actor or body should be given overall responsibility for the composition.
The government should also consider giving the courts greater scope to check jurors continuously against police records and criminal records.
Source: National Audit Office
What do you think?