[:lt]<\/p>\n
Seimo Teis\u0117s ir teis\u0117tvarkos komiteto apskritojo stalo diskusijoje pristatytas Lietuvos teis\u0117s instituto mokslinink\u0173 atliktas tyrimas, kurio rezultatai sud\u0117ti \u012f monografij\u0105 \u201eTar\u0117j\u0173 instituto perspektyvos Lietuvoje\u201c.<\/p>\n
Monografijos autoriai dr. Petras Ragauskas, Egl\u0117 Kavoli\u016bnait\u0117-Ragauskien\u0117, Mindaugas Lankauskas, dr. R\u016bta Latvel\u0117, Vaidas Kalpokas (apklaus\u0173 duomen\u0173 apdorojimas) savo atliktu tyrimu siek\u0117 sprendim\u0173 pri\u0117m\u0117jams pad\u0117ti apsispr\u0119sti d\u0117l tar\u0117j\u0173 instituto koncepcijos Lietuvoje. <\/p>\n
Seime vykusiame monografijos pristatyme Lietuvos teis\u0117s instituto direktor\u0117 Jurgita Pau\u017eait\u0117 -Kulvinskien\u0117 atkreip\u0117 d\u0117mes\u012f \u012f tai, kad \u0161i monografija yra ypatingai svarbi Lietuvos teisin\u0117s sistemos atei\u010diai, nes atsako \u012f svarbiausius klausimus d\u0117l tar\u0117j\u0173 institucijos. <\/p>\n
\u201eDabartin\u0117s Vyriausyb\u0117s programoje nustatytas ai\u0161kus u\u017edavinys – \u201eatkurti \u017emoni\u0173 pasitik\u0117jim\u0105 teisine sistema, parengti koncepcij\u0105 ir \u012fstatym\u0173 pakeitimo projektus d\u0117l visuomenini\u0173 teis\u0117j\u0173 (tar\u0117j\u0173) instituto teismuose.\u201c Tvirtindamas Vyriausyb\u0117s program\u0105 Seimas \u0161\u012f pa\u017ead\u0105 pavert\u0117 teisiniu \u012fpareigojimu,\u201c – atkreip\u0117 d\u0117mes\u012f instituto direktor\u0117. <\/p>\n
Lietuvoje pasitik\u0117jimas teismais vienas \u017eemiausi\u0173 Europos S\u0105jungoje: remiantis \u201eEurobarometro\u201c 2013 m. atliktu tyrimu, tik 31 proc. Lietuvos gyventoj\u0173 buvo link\u0119 pasitik\u0117ti teisingumo sistema (ES vidurkis \u2013 53 proc.). ES pagal \u0161\u012f rodikl\u012f Lietuva lenkia tik Slov\u0117nij\u0105, \u010cekij\u0105 ir Slovakij\u0105. \u0160i pad\u0117tis glaud\u017eiai susijusi su nepasitik\u0117jimu valstybe, nusivylimu demokratine sistema, pesimisti\u0161ku po\u017ei\u016briu \u012f valstyb\u0117s ateit\u012f, pilie\u010di\u0173 pasyvumu, nepagarba teisei. <\/p>\n
Analizuojant tar\u0117j\u0173 instituto \u012fdiegimo \u012f Lietuvos teisin\u0119 sistem\u0105 galimybes, mokslininkai \u012fvertino politin\u0119 vali\u0105, visuomen\u0117s (kartu ir profesionali\u0173 teisinink\u0173 bendruomen\u0117s) nuomoni\u0173 tendencijos ir mokslo darbai \u0161ia tema.<\/p>\n
Atliekant tyrim\u0105 buvo \u012fvertinti \u201eu\u017e\u201c ir \u201eprie\u0161\u201c. Tar\u0117j\u0173 institucijos \u0161alininkai vardija tokius privalumus: sustipr\u0117t\u0173 visuomen\u0117s teisinis \u0161vietimas, b\u016bt\u0173 \u012fgyvendinta po\u017ei\u016bri\u0173 \u012fvairov\u0117, suart\u0117t\u0173 \u201egyvoji\u201c ir formalioji teis\u0117, teisin\u0117 sistema tapt\u0173 demokrati\u0161kesn\u0117, atsirast\u0173 papildoma apsauga nuo teismo piktnaud\u017eiavim\u0173, tar\u0117jai b\u016bt\u0173 kaip papildomas teis\u0117j\u0173 nepriklausomumo garantas. Tar\u0117j\u0173 institucijos prie\u0161ininkus labiausiai neramina tai, kad n\u0117ra tar\u0117j\u0173 institucijos tradicijos, tokia institucija gali tapti beprasmi\u0161ku balastu teismo procesui, sprendimai gali b\u016bti neprognozuojami, i\u0161auga laiko ir pinig\u0173 s\u0105naudos, sprendimai bus priimami nei\u0161manant teis\u0117s ir remiantis subjektyviu teisingumo jausmu, tai gali paskatinti baud\u017eiamosios politikos grie\u017et\u0117jim\u0105, atsirast\u0173 favoritizmo ir korupcijos gr\u0117sm\u0117, b\u016bt\u0173 vadovaujamasi emocijomis, prietarais ir stereotipais. <\/p>\n
Tyrimo duomenys liudija, kad prie\u0161 bet kok\u012f visuomen\u0117s dalyvavim\u0105 priimant sprendimus teismuose pasisak\u0117 37 proc. i\u0161 beveik 550 apklaust\u0173 teis\u0117j\u0173, prokuror\u0173 ir advokat\u0173. Labai svarbu tai, kad su tar\u0117jais anks\u010diau susid\u016br\u0119 respondentai tur\u0117jo daug palankesn\u0119 nuomon\u0119 tiek d\u0117l j\u0173 dalyvavimo teismo procese, tiek ir d\u0117l visuomen\u0117s dalyvavimo apskritai.<\/p>\n
Tyrimo metu buvo ie\u0161koma atsakym\u0173 \u012f \u012fvairius teorinius ir praktinius klausimus, kylan\u010dius diegiant tar\u0117j\u0173 institut\u0105. Tyrimo tikslais buvo atlikta u\u017esienio valstybi\u0173 praktikos ap\u017evalga, Lietuvos teisini\u0173 profesij\u0173 atstov\u0173 (advokat\u0173, teis\u0117j\u0173 ir prokuror\u0173) apklausa, atlikta vie\u0161ojo diskurso tar\u0117j\u0173 klausimu interneto portaluose analiz\u0117, vertinti su tar\u0117j\u0173 instituto \u012fdiegimu susij\u0119 prana\u0161umai, tr\u016bkumai ir galimos gr\u0117sm\u0117s. Vis\u0173 \u0161i\u0173 tyrim\u0173 med\u017eiaga nuosekliai pristatoma atitinkamuose \u0161io darbo skyriuose.<\/p>\n
Daugiau informacijos:<\/p>\n
Ineta Stravinskait\u0117 \u2013 Janavi\u010dien\u0117
Lietuvos teis\u0117s institutas
Tel. 8 699 04294\u00a0<\/p>\n
[:en]<\/p>\n
The monograph \u201eProspects of Institute of Lay Judges in Lithuania\u201c, containing the results of research carried out by the Law Institute of Lithuania was presented in the roundtable discussion held by the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania.<\/p>\n
The authors of the monograph dr. Petras Ragauskas, Egl\u0117 Kavoli\u016bnait\u0117-Ragauskien\u0117, Mindaugas Lankauskas, dr. R\u016bta Latvel\u0117 and Vaidas Kalpokas sought to help the decision makers to decide on the concept of the lay judge institute in Lithuania.<\/p>\n
Director of the Law Institute of Lithuania dr. Jurgita Pau\u017eait\u0117 \u2013Kulvinskien\u0117 during the presentation of monograph drew attention to the fact that this monograph is very important for the future of Lithuanian legal system, because it responses to the key issues concerning the institute of lay judges.<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u201cThe current government program established a clear objective \u2013 to restore public confidence in the legal system, develop the concept and draft amendments to the law on the lay judges institute in the court. The Seimas, by approving the Government\u2018s program turned this promise into a legal obligation.\u201c \u2013 noted the director of the Law Institute of Lithuania.<\/p>\n
The confidence in the courts in Lithuania is one of the lowest in the European Union: according to the Eurobarometer 2013 data, only 31 percent of Lithuanian resident were inclined to trust the justice system (EU average \u2013 53 percent). According to this indicator, Lithuania is ahead of only Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. This situation is closely related to distrust of the state, disappointment in the democratic system, pessimistic view of the future of the state, citizens\u2018 passivity, lack of respect for law.<\/p>\n
When evaluating the opportunities and prospects regarding the introduction of lay judge institute into the legal system of the Republic of Lithuania, the researchers also evaluated the political will, public (as well as the legal professionals) opinions trends and scientific works on the subject.<\/p>\n
The pros and cons were evaluated in the research. Proponents of the institute of lay judges identifies the following advantages: public legal education would be strengthened, the variety of viewpoints would be implemented, \u201cliving law\u201d and formal law would convergent, the legal system would become more democratic, an additional protection against judicial misuse of powers would be created,\u00a0 lay judges would be as an additional guarantee of the independence of judges. Opponents of the institute of lay judges are worried that there are no tradition of lay judges institute, such institute may become meaningless ballast in court proceedings, decisions could be unpredictable, time and money costs would increase, decisions will be taken on the basis of lack of knowledge of law and the subjective sense of justice, this may lead to tightening of the criminal policy, threats of favouritism and corruption may occur, it would be guided by emotions, prejudices and stereotypes.<\/p>\n
The research data shows that 37 percent of nearly 550 interviewed judges, prosecutors and lawyers argued against any public participation in the decision-making processes in the courts. It is very important that respondent who had previously faced lay judges had a more favourable opinion on both \u2013 their participation in court proceedings, as well as participation of society as a whole.<\/p>\n
The research sought to answer various theoretical and practical issues arising from the introduction of the lay judges institute. Researchers performed a review of the foreign countries practise, as well carried out survey of Lithuanian legal professionals (lawyers, judges and prosecutors), analysed public discourse regarding the issues on lay judges in the internet portals, analysed the strengths, weaknesses and potential threats regarding the introduction of lay judge institute.<\/p>\n
More information: <\/p>\n