Nämndemän i den dömande verksamheten: en rättssociologisk undersökning om nämndemännen på Lunds tingsrätt följer de rättsliga normerna

After a recent discussion in the media about suitability and role lay judges in the courts, I thought their role and function should be investigated further as it is both an interesting and topical issue. The purpose of this study was to determine if lay judges follow the legal standards that govern their work and if there are trends that suggest that political views can influence the verdict, and if this political influence may be to the detriment of citizens in society. To arrive at the answer to these questions a qualitative content analysis of sentences at Lunds tingsrätt during 2009 and a quantitative survey of how lay judges at Lunds tingsrätt perciev their role have been carried out, and with the help of these investigations, the following conclusions emerged: political views may be involved in sentencing in some cases. Some of the lay judges would like that their political views are visible when they judge the case as well as felt in the sentencing. Some of the concerned lay judges considered that they have the ability of using their political views in sentencing. This is contrary to the legal standards that govern their work and can therefore be concluded that all the jurors do not follow the legal standards that govern their work. Those who consider themselves to use their political views are in breach of the legal standards that say you must be impartial and objective. The use of political views are not permitted on the judicial function, and this may lead to persons being treated unfairly, which may be detrimental to the public. Lay judges are supposed to serve as a public representative in the courts and are at the same time supposed to serve as a balance to the juridical institutions and professional judges. However, even if some lay judges contradict the decisions of the professional judges, the cases that they do not are much more frequent which maybe is an even more interesting fact that questions the role and purpose of this institution to an even larger extent than when they do not agree with the professional judge