| Abstract [eng] |
Discussions regarding the involvement of representatives of the public in the administration of justice in Lithuania are constantly resurfacing, both in academic circles and in the form of proposed legislative amendments. As this topic remains relevant and subject to debate, this master’s thesis analyzes the possibilities and prospects for the (non-)establishment of one such representative of the public – namely, the institution of the jury – in Lithuanian criminal proceedings. The institution of the jury has particularly ancient origins, dating back to ancient Greece, and took its modern form in medieval England. All three forms of public participation in the administration of justice – juries, lay judges, and justices of the peace – are generally associated with increasing the transparency and openness of court proceedings, strengthening public trust in the courts, and reducing the risk of corruption. However, these forms also have drawbacks, such as longer trial durations, higher costs, unpredictable outcomes, and more complex administration. An analysis of legal regulations and practices in different countries reveals that the success and establishment of jury trials are closely linked to a country’s legal tradition, public expectations, and other factors. The analysis conducted suggests that a jury system in criminal proceedings could be legally established in Lithuania either by granting it an advisory role without amending the Constitution, or by granting it binding adjudicative power following constitutional reform. However, the practical implementation of such a model and its prospects would pose significant challenges that could negatively impact the efficiency of the process and the quality of decisions, contradict the established doctrine of the Constitutional Court, and run counter to the general direction of the law. Therefore, the introduction of a jury trial system into Lithuanian criminal proceedings is not currently considered a viable option and would not offer any significant benefits to the justice system. On the other hand, the idea that the question of establishing this institution may be seriously considered in the future due to changed circumstances and increased demand cannot be ruled out. |
