Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law, Islamic Azad University: Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran Corresponding Author Email: habibibabak100@gmail.com
2
Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, Theology & Political Science, Islamic Azad University: Science & Research Branch, Tehran, Iran
3
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
The role of people and the necessity of their participation within the framework of the judicial system is considered as one of the central and controversial issues in modern criminal law, which can be examined from various legal, social, and political dimensions. Simultaneously by formation of modern criminal law and the development of fair trial theories, the issue of direct or indirect participation of citizens in the judicial process has gained increasing importance. In this regard, the jury institution, as one of the prominent manifestations of popular participation in criminal justice, has always attracted the attention of scholars and legislators and has a history beyond the formation of modern judicial institutions. The presence of a jury in the judicial process, especially in common law legal systems (such as England) and some mixed legal systems (such as France), is considered to be a crystallization of public opinion and a kind of popular guarantee of justice in the trial process. The fundamental basis for the formation of this institution is to create public trust in criminal justice and to confront monopoly and discretionary decision-making in criminal proceedings. By deciding whether the accused is guilty or not, the jury is in fact considered to represent the general conscience of society in a fair trial. A comparative study shows that two general patterns can be distinguished regarding the scope and role of the jury: a minimal pattern that focuses public participation on specific and limited areas, and a maximal pattern that pursues a more active and effective presence of the public in the criminal trial process. In England, as one of the main origins of this institution, the jury has traditionally played a prominent role, especially in major criminal cases. Although in recent decades, changes in law and practice have reduced its scope, and some observers believe that the country is gradually moving towards limiting or even practically eliminating this institution. However, in English legal culture, the jury remains a symbol of popular justice and fair trial. In France, although the institution of the jury was introduced into the country's legal system following England, it gradually adapted to its own legal structure. In the French mixed system, the jury participates alongside the judge in making decisions on specific criminal cases, especially serious crimes. The simultaneous presence of the judge and members of the public in the judging process has been interpreted as a combination of legal rationality and public conscience, which attempts to reduce judicial error on the one hand and strengthen the public's sense of trust in the justice system on the other. In contrast, the Iranian legal system, by adopting a minimal approach, has limited the institution of the jury to press and political crimes only. This, despite the legal capacities in Articles 168 and 175 of the Constitution, has caused the jury to distance itself from its effective role in the country's criminal justice system. On the other hand, the implementation of this institution has also been accompanied by challenges such as the selection of members, insufficient training, lack of transparency in the decision-making mechanism, and public ignorance. Despite the vast potential for enhancing public participation in the judicial process, especially in cases where public trust in the judiciary needs to be restored, the jury institution in Iran remains a formal and ineffective structure. Other problems in the Iranian system include the lack of sufficient cultural support for accepting the role of the public in judging, the lack of basic legal training for jury members, the lack of transparency in the decisions issued, and even the resistance of the traditional body of the judiciary to citizen interference. These challenges, along with the limited scope of jurisdiction of the jury, have prevented this institution from fulfilling its intended role in achieving fair and participatory proceedings. In this article, with a descriptive-analytical approach and using comparative studies, an attempt has been made to examine the historical, cultural, and legal contexts of the formation of the jury in Iran, as well as to identify its strengths and weaknesses. Also, looking at the experiences of England and France, solutions are presented to revive and strengthen this institution as a manifestation of participatory criminal policy. Among these solutions, expanding the jurisdiction of the jury to some important public crimes, increasing general and specialized training for members, reforming executive procedures, strengthening the transparency of the trial process, and promoting a culture of public participation in justice can be mentioned. Finally, the real revival of the jury institution in Iran requires political will, a review of existing laws, and more importantly, an effort to institutionalize the culture of citizen participation in the realization of justice. Only then can this institution be used as a tool to strengthen the legitimacy and efficiency of the judicial system
Keywords
Main Subjects
)