Leader: Should the Swedish people really be judged by amateurs?

Cases in Swedish courts are decided by legal judges and jurors. The first ones represent the expertise. The latter must contribute to ensuring that the decisions are generally in line with what is usually called general legal awareness.

The system means that it is not enough to make demands on lawyers. Even the approximately 8,100 laymen must maintain a high standard. But with that, there is sometimes a bit of back and forth, the National Audit Office's review shows.

It is partly about individuals not living up to expectations - a third of the courts surveyed state that the jurors' behavior in the courtroom has negatively affected the court's credibility. Partly that their composition does not reflect the population as intended, for example in terms of age and ethnic background.

Neither is particularly strange.

The referees only receive a short introductory training of one to eight hours. According to the review, many are asking for more time, in-depth study and exchange of experience, which should be taken seriously when the Swedish Judicial Agency now reviews the training. And as the National Audit Office writes, it is time to introduce a recommended minimum length.

Why not investigate whether the tradition of lay referees should be consigned to history?

The composition is more difficult to control because no body has overall responsibility. The local party associations nominate candidates independently of each other, and the municipal or regional councils choose without making a collective assessment.

On the other hand, there is almost no reason to question how jurors are selected.

In recent years, it has become increasingly apparent that the parties are failing to weed out unsuitable candidates. The appointees have been guilty of everything from heated arguments in judgments to gross racist comments in other contexts. In addition, studies show that the jurors' political affiliation affects court decisions in different ways.

The overstepping rhymes badly with the principles of the rule of law that jurors, just like legal judges, must be objective, neutral and judge according to the law book. And there are several simple things to do to get away from the ideologies.

For example – as a government inquiry suggested – to allow others than the parties to nominate. Preferably combined with a minimum quota for the proportion of jurors to be made up of these.

But it would be best to drop the political connection completely. Or why not investigate whether the tradition of lay judges should be consigned to history?

Read more:

DN's editorial board: Danish researchers are playing with the lives of African children