Book contents
- ASCL Studies In Comparative Law
- Juries, Lay Judges, and Mixed Courts
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Editors
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Advances in Lay Participation
- Part II Enduring Systems of Lay Participation
- 7 “… And My Right”
- 8 “In the Name of the People”
- 9 The Jury in Canada
- Part III Challenges to Lay Participation in Law
- Part IV Global Perspectives on Lay Participation
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
8 - “In the Name of the People”
Lay Assessors in Germany
from Part II - Enduring Systems of Lay Participation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 August 2021
Book contents
- ASCL Studies In Comparative Law
- Juries, Lay Judges, and Mixed Courts
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Editors
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Advances in Lay Participation
- Part II Enduring Systems of Lay Participation
- 7 “… And My Right”
- 8 “In the Name of the People”
- 9 The Jury in Canada
- Part III Challenges to Lay Participation in Law
- Part IV Global Perspectives on Lay Participation
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
Lay participation is part of Germany’s legal system. Lay assessors, who are ordinary citizens, serve alongside professional judges on mixed tribunals. This chapter focuses on criminal courts that use lay assessors. We find that lay assessors indeed contribute to the work of the German criminal courts. Lay assessors are most active during deliberations, especially if the presiding professional judge accepts them as partners with equal rights. Most laypersons report a positive experience, and indeed, most professional judges sitting on mixed tribunals support lay participation. German court culture encourages lay assessors and professional judges to reach a consensual decision rather than taking a formal vote. The chapter suggests several reforms that would enable lay assessors to play a more active role on mixed tribunals.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Juries, Lay Judges, and Mixed CourtsA Global Perspective, pp. 152 - 173Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Asimow, M. (2007). Popular culture and the adversary system. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 40(2), 653–685.Google Scholar
Baderschneider, M. M. S. (2010). Der Bürger als Richter: Eine empirische Untersuchung des ehrenamtlichen Richters an den Verwaltungsgerichten [The citizen as judge: An empirical study of lay assessors at administrative courts]. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Battenberg, F. (1990). Schöffen, Schöffengericht [Lay assessors, court of lay assessors]. In Erler, A & Kaufmann, E (Eds.), Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte [Concise dictionary of German legal history], Vol. 4 (pp. 1463–1469). Berlin: E. Schmidt.Google Scholar
Borucka-Arctowa, M. (1976). Citizen participation in the administration of justice: Research and policy in Poland. In Friedman, L & Rehbinder, M (Eds.), Zur Soziologie des Gerichtsverfahrens: Jahrbuch für Rechtssoziologie und Rechtstheorie [On the sociology of legal proceedings: Yearbook for legal sociology and legal theory], Vol. 4 (pp. 286–299). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Bundesamt für Justiz [Federal Office of Justice (Ger.)]. (n.d.). Ehrenamtliche Richterinnen und Richter zum 1. Januar 2014, Geschlechtsstruktur: Erwachsenen- und Jugendspruchkörper insgesamt [Lay assessors as of January 1, 2014. Gender structure: Total of adult and youth panels]. www.bundesjustizamt.de/DE/SharedDocs/Publikationen/Justizstatistik/Schoeffenstatistik_2009.pdf?__blob=publicationFileGoogle Scholar
Bundesministerium der Justiz [Federal Ministry of Justice (Ger.)]. (1996). Im Namen des Volkes? Über die Justiz im Staat der SED [In the name of the people? On the legal system in the state of the SED]. Exhibition catalogue. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Forum.Google Scholar
Burgess, P., Corby, S., Höland, A., Michel, H., Willemez, L., Buchwald, C., & Krausbeck, E. (2017). The roles, resources and competencies of employee lay judges: A cross-national study of Germany, France and Great Britain. www.boeckler.de/pdf/p_fofoe_WP_051_2017.pdfGoogle Scholar
Casper, G., & Zeisel, H. (1972). Lay judges in the German criminal court. Journal of Legal Studies, 1(1), 135–191.Google Scholar
Casper, G., & Zeisel, H.(1979). Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Federal Republic of Germany]. In Casper, G & Zeisel, H (Eds.), Der Laienrichter im Strafprozeß [The lay judge in the criminal case] (pp. 21–86). Heidelberg: C. F. Müller.Google Scholar
DVS. (2016a). Lay judges in Germany. www.schoeffen.de/ehrenamtliche-richter/lay-judges-in-germany.htmlGoogle Scholar
DVS.(2016b). Rechtspolitisches Programm des Bundesverbandes ehrenamtlicher Richterinnen und Richter e.V. [Legal-political program of the Federation of Lay Judges]. Richter ohne Robe, 28(1), 10–17.Google Scholar
Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz [Court Procedure Code (Ger.)] (01/27/1877), §§ 24, 25, 29(1), 29(2), 42, 74(3), 76, 76(1), 121(1), 122, 122(1), 133, 196.Google Scholar
Gerken, J. (1986). Bürger als Richter: Eine Studie über Einstellungen und Erfahrungen von Schöffen in Jugendstrafverfahren [The citizen as judge: A study on attitudes and experiences of youth court lay assessors in youth criminal trials]. Diploma thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Gerken, J.(1988). Bürger als Richter: Über Jugendschöffen und den Erziehungsanspruch des Jugendstrafrechts [The citizen as judge: On youth court lay assessors and the pretension of the youth criminal law to educate]. In Gerken, J & Schumann, K. F. (Eds.), Ein trojanisches Pferd im Rechtsstaat: Der Erziehungsgedanke in der Jugendgerichtspraxis [A trojan horse in the rule of law: The educational concept in the practice of juvenile justice] (pp. 101–125). Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus.Google Scholar
Glöckner, A., & Landsberg, M. (2010). Entscheidungsverhalten von Schöffen: Forschungsbericht [Decision behavior of lay assessors at criminal courts: Research report]. Bonn: Max-Planck-Institut zur Erforschung von Gemeinschaftsgütern.Google Scholar
Glöckner, A., & Landsberg, M.(2011). Der Schöffe entscheidet: Eine empirische Studie zum Entscheidungsverhalten von Schöffen [The lay assessor at criminal court decides: An empirical study on the decision behavior of lay assessors at criminal courts]. Richter ohne Robe, 23(2), 44–47.Google Scholar
Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany] (05/23/1949), Art. 20(1), 102.Google Scholar
Hillenkamp, T. (1998). Zur Teilhabe des Laienrichters [On the participation of lay judges]. In Albrecht, H.-J., Dünkel, F, Kerner, H.-J., Kürzinger, J, Schöch, H, & Sessar, K (Eds.), Internationale Perspektiven in Kriminologie und Strafrecht: Festschrift für Günther Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag [International perspectives in criminology and criminal law: Commemorative publication for Günther Kaiser on his seventieth birthday], Vol. 2 (pp. 1437–1459). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Kammholz, K. (2018, June 29). Wieviele Einwohner hat Deutschland eigentlich? [How many inhabitants does Germany actually have?] Berliner Morgenpost. www.morgenpost.de/politik/article214716939/Wie-viele-Einwohner-hat-Deutschland-eigentlich.htmlGoogle Scholar
Kern, E. (1954). Geschichte des Gerichtsverfassungsrechts [History of the Court Procedure Code]. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Klausa, E. (1972). Ehrenamtliche Richter: Ihre Auswahl und Funktion, empirisch untersucht [Lay assessors: Their selection and function, empirically studied]. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Knittel, E. (1970). Mitbestimmung in der Strafjustiz: Was soll aus dem deutschen Schwurgericht werden? [Participation in criminal courts: What should become of the German jury court?] Marburg: N. G. Elwert.Google Scholar
Köcher, R. (2014, July 23). Großes Vertrauen in die deutsche Justiz [Great trust in German courts]. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. www.ifd-allensbach.de/uploads/tx_reportsndocs/FAZ_August_Justiz.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kronenberger, F. R. (1989). Laien in der Strafrechtspflege? [Laypersons in the administration of criminal law?] In Jung, H (Ed.), Alternativen zur Strafjustiz und die Garantie individueller Rechte der Betroffenen [Alternatives to criminal justice and guaranteeing individual rights of those affected] (pp. 185–191). Bonn: Forum.Google Scholar
Kühne, H.-H. (1989). Laienkompetenz gegen Expertenkompetenz im Strafrecht? [Lay competence versus expert competence in criminal law?] In Jung, H (Ed.), Alternativen zur Strafjustiz und die Garantie individueller Rechte der Betroffenen [Alternatives to criminal justice and guaranteeing individual rights of those affected] (pp. 175–183). Bonn: Forum.Google Scholar
Kutnjak Ivković, S. (1999). Lay participation in criminal trials: The case of Croatia. Lanham, MD: Austin & Winfield.Google Scholar
Lautmann, R. (1985). Rechtsfindung als Karriereberuf [Finding law as a professional career]. In Festschrift für Rudolf Wassermann zum sechzigsten Geburtstag [Commemorative publication for Rudolf Wassermann on his sixtieth birthday] (pp. 109–121). Neuwied: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
Lemke, M. (1999). Die grundlegenden Prinzipien des Strafverfahrens [The basic principles of criminal procedure]. In Lieber, H & Sens, U (Eds.), Ehrenamtliche Richter: Demokratie oder Dekoration am Richtertisch? [Lay assessors: Democracy or decoration at the judge’s table?] (pp. 112–116). Wiesbaden: Kommunal- und Schulverlag.Google Scholar
Lempert, R. (2015). The American jury system: A synthetic overview. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 90, 825–859.Google Scholar
Lennartz, O. (2016). Erziehung durch Jugendschöffen? [Education by youth court lay assessors?] Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Lennartz, O.(2017). Erziehung durch Jugendschöffen? [Education by youth court lay assessors?] Richter ohne Robe, 17(1), 3–5.Google Scholar
Lieber, H. (1994). Umfrage zur Arbeit der Schöffen in Brandenburg [Survey on the work of lay assessors at criminal courts in Brandenburg]. Richter ohne Robe, 6(1), 1–13 (cited after the manuscript).Google Scholar
Lieber, H.(1995). Das Fragerecht des Schöffen und seine Beschränkungen: Umfang, Verfahren, Konsequenzen [The right of lay assessors at criminal courts to ask questions and its limitations: Extent, procedure, consequences]. Richter ohne Robe, 7(3), 106–109.Google Scholar
Lieber, H.(1996). Handbuch für Schöffinnen und Schöffen [Handbook for lay assessors at criminal courts]. Erfurt: Deutscher Kommunal-Verlag.Google Scholar
Lieber, H.(1997). An der Wende zweier Schöffenperioden: Ergebnisse einer Umfrage [At the watershed of two periods of lay assessors at criminal courts: Results of a survey]. Richter ohne Robe, 9(4), 118–119.Google Scholar
Lieber, H.(2017). Die Verantwortung der Gemeinden und Kreise bei der Schöffenwahl 2018 [The responsibilities of municipalities and counties in the 2018 election of lay assessors at criminal courts]. Wiesbaden: Kommunal- und Schulverlag.Google Scholar
Lieber, H.(2018a). 25 Jahre Rechtspflegeentlastungsgesetz: Eine Bilanz aus der Sicht der ehrenamtlichen Richter [25 years of the Law on the Relief of the Administration of Justice: A balance from the point of view of lay assessors]. Richter ohne Robe, 30(1), 14–17.Google Scholar
Lieber, H.(2018b, October 10). Prozent der Strafverfahren in mündlicher Hauptverhandlung [Percent of criminal trials in oral hearing]. Email communication.Google Scholar
Lieber, H., & Burchardt, U. (1989). Laienrichter: Dekoration oder Demokratie am Richtertisch? [Lay judges: Decoration or democracy at the judge’s table?] Dortmund: Pad-Verlag.Google Scholar
Lilie-Hutz, A. (2017). Akteneinsicht für Schöffen [Access to files by lay judges at criminal courts]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Linkenheil, B. (2003). Laienbeteiligung an der Strafjustiz [Lay participation at criminal courts]. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Machura, S. (2001a). Fairneß und Legitimität [Fairness and legitimacy]. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Machura, S.(2001b). Interaction between lay assessors and professional judges in German mixed courts. International Review of Penal Law, 72(1–2), 451–479.Google Scholar
Machura, S.(2006). Ehrenamtliche Verwaltungsrichter [Lay assessors at administrative courts]. Berlin: LIT.Google Scholar
Machura, S.(2007). Lay assessors of German administrative courts: Fairness, power distance orientation and deliberation activity. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(2), 331–362.Google Scholar
Machura, S.(2011). Media influence on the perception of the legal system. In Papendorf, K, Machura, S, & Andenaes, K (Eds.), Understanding law in society (pp. 239–283). Zurich: LIT.Google Scholar
Machura, S.(2016). Civil justice: Lay judges in the EU countries. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 6(2), 235–254. http://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/viewFile/548/865Google Scholar
Mathes, R. (1999). Volksrichter – Schöffen – Kollektive [People’s judges – Lay assessors – Collectives]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Pauli, H.-U. (1999). Umfrage unter den ehrenamtlichen Richterinnen und Richtern bei dem Sozialgericht Münster [Survey of lay assessors at the Munster Social Court]. Münster: Sozialgericht Münster. Az. M E 522–91.Google Scholar
Peller, W. (1999). Schöffen in der DDR [Lay assessors in the GDR]. In Lieber, H & Sens, U (Eds.), Ehrenamtliche Richter: Demokratie oder Dekoration am Richtertisch? [Lay assessors: Democracy or decoration at the judge’s table?] (pp. 193–197). Wiesbaden: Kommunal- und Schulverlag.Google Scholar
Petersen, T. (2020, June 18). Die Stunde der Wissenschaft [The hour of science]. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.Google Scholar
Pfister, W. (2010). Die Verfahrensabsprache im Strafprozess: Welche Rolle haben die Schöffen? [The deal in criminal trials: What is the role of lay assessors in criminal court?] Richter ohne Robe, 22(2), 97‒101.Google Scholar
Pomorski, S. (1975). Lay judges in the Polish criminal courts: A legal and empirical description. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 7(2), 198–209.Google Scholar
Professorinnen und Professoren genießen hohes Ansehen [Professors enjoy high prestige]. (2020). Forschung und Lehre, 27(2), 7.Google Scholar
Rasehorn, T. (2016). Die Kompetenz des Schöffen in der Praxis [The competence of lay assessors in criminal court in practice]. Richter ohne Robe, 28(1), 17‒18.Google Scholar
Rennig, C. (1993). Die Entscheidungsfindung durch Schöffen und Berufsrichter in rechtlicher und psychologischer Sicht [Decision-making by lay assessors in criminal court and professional judges from legal and psychological perspectives]. Marburg: N. G. Elwert.Google Scholar
Rennig, C.(2001). Influence of lay assessors and giving reasons for the judgement in German mixed courts. International Review of Penal Law, 72(1–2), 481–494.Google Scholar
Rennig, C., & Machura, S. (1999). Die Zusammenarbeit zwischen Schöffen und Berufsrichtern [The cooperation between lay assessors at criminal court and professional judges]. In Lieber, H & Sens, U (Eds.), Ehrenamtliche Richter: Demokratie oder Dekoration am Richtertisch? [Lay assessors: Democracy or decoration at the judge’s table?] (pp. 65–70). Wiesbaden: Kommunal- und Schul-Verlag.Google Scholar
Rennig, C., & Strempel, D. (1996). Einführung [Introduction]. In Rennig, C & Strempel, D (Eds.), Justiz im Umbruch [Justice in transition] (pp. 7–11). Cologne: Bundesanzeiger.Google Scholar
Rönnau, T. (2017). Lay judges in the German criminal justice system: A critical review. Waseda Law School Review, 2, 177–211.Google Scholar
Rottleuthner, H. (1994). Steuerung der Justiz in der DDR [Control of the justice system in the GDR]. Cologne: Bundesanzeiger.Google Scholar
Rüter, G. (1998). Wer bleibt im Netz der Strafverfolgung hängen? [Who does not get past the net of criminal persecution?] Richter ohne Robe, 10(1), 3–6.Google Scholar
Schmitt, B. (2018). Strafprozessordnung [Penal Procedure Code]. 61st ed. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Statistisches Bundesamt [Federal Statistical Office (Ger.)]. (2018). Rechtspflege. Strafgerichte. 2017. [Administration of justice. Criminal courts. 2017]. Fachserie 10, Reihe 2.3. www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Rechtspflege/GerichtePersonal/Strafgerichte2100230177004.pdf?__blob=publicationFileGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In Zanna, M (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 25 (pp. 115–191). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Walter, A. (1992). Was müssen, was sollen Schöffen wissen? [What do lay assessors at criminal court have to and should know?] In Deutsche Vereinigung der Schöffinnen und Schöffen & Stiftung Mitarbeit (Eds.), 1. Deutscher Schöffentag: Mehr Demokratie am Richtertisch [More democracy at the judge’s table] (pp. 30–52). Bonn: Stiftung Mitarbeit.Google Scholar
Wolfe, N. (n.d.). Untitled research report. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Zawadzki, S., & Kubicki, L. (Eds.). (1970). Udzial lawnikow w postepowaniu karnym [Lay participation in criminal cases]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Prawnisze.Google Scholar