A strange form of the rule of law

In the Newspaper 8. February goes writer Øyvind Søtvik Rekstad out to the defenses of Eric Jensen and juryordningen. He attributes to me also, professional arrogance and a facile view of the rule of law.

Rekstad has basically understanding of the question by a jurykjennelse who knew Jensen guilty of corruption, but innocent in what he possibly had received bribes, namely, the complicity to drug trafficking. Punishment for corruption requires normally an additional criminal offense – that return for bestikkelsen.

LAWYER: Carl the Drill. Show more

Rekstad believes that the ruling should still have been accepted because the jury has not given any justification. There is a surprising twist: Generally, it is used that the jury did not justify its ruling as an argument against the jury and juryordningen, not for. Rekstad make also a hypothesis that the jury may have meant that it was corrupted by Jensen to accept the money "because he should have understood that the funds came from criminal activity".

describe however, Rekstad not corruption, but negligence heleri. Believe Rekstad it is ok to judge a politioverbetjent for corruption if he is innocent of corruption? It is in this case a peculiar form of rule of law. Corruption has also a higher sentence than involuntary manslaughter heleri. The above also illustrates that the jury's assignment was complicated, and involved far more than bevisvurdering. It is hard-boiled law to determine whether the Jensen relationship is corruption, heleri, a straffri action, complicity to trafficking, and possibly something else.

It in practice says is: We are lawyers and know better than you Debate

I must disappoint Rekstad: Lawyers are generally better equipped to decide such an issue than those without a degree and relevant experience. Rekstad must like to be unhappy with the ankesakens outcomes, but one must almost have a little respect for that law is a subject. If one is seriously ill; one will want to be operated on by a random passer-by with a five-month crash course in medicine, or prefer the surgeon who held the course? To call doctors who recommend a surgeon for the arrogant, is at least in excess arrogant.

the Jury claim that the ruling will always be respected. Parliament has by law provided lagdommerne the authority to set aside the ruling if they are – so who here thinks that the defendant "undoubtedly" is guilty. Tilsidesettelsen was thus in line with the legislation. It can hardly be called a violation of the rule of law. We will not except stemmetallene. In the district court was Jensen field by a panel of three meddommere and two fagdommere. In the court of appeal the case was considered by ten jurors and three fagdommere. How have the different tuned?

Nine of the 13 wine and five of five fagdommere – i.e. a total of 14 out of 18 people, has found Jensen guilty beyond reasonable doubt of complicity to drug trafficking. Corruption is stemmetallet 15 of the 18 votes.

Jensen would have been acquitted Debate

When such a large majority of lekdommerne parts fagdommernes opinion about the defendant's guilt, it is rather misguided to misrepresent Jensen-matter as a power struggle between lekfolks common sense, and professional arrogance, almost like a battle between good and evil. Or accuses Rekstad nine-ten of the 13 lekfolkene to have voiced arrogant and unreasonable with evil intentions?

What about the audience? The 18 subjects - and lekdommerne based its conclusion on more than a hundred depositions and countless binders of documents presented over a period of five months – overall, a very significant evidence. It almost goes without saying that unless one has followed the case, so one has no basis to conclude seriously about the issue of guilt.

One conclusion from my side will therefore at best be an educated guess that lacking any public interest. My article in Aftenposten therefore contain no "bevisvurdering". Here Rekstad forlest out rough. Something else is that stemmetallene gives reason to ponder for those who believe that Jensen is innocent.

Has collected over 140 000 to Eirik Jensen

the Numbers also means that it can't be called a rettssikkerhetsbrudd that the issue of guilt shall be tried again. Had the appeal gone with a composite court, would Jensen today probably have stood again as the court judged on both main points. Instead, get the accused and the three forsvarsadvokatene enough of a chance to prove his innocence, in a third rettsrunde of about five months where they can start over and pointed arguments even more. For the rest, to a very high price tag for the public. To accuse the system for the lack of the rule of law in such a setting, almost as if to spit on the juryordningen. This is on the contrary a spacious the rule of law thanks to juryordningen.

also have Rekstad like to continue to argue for juryordningen in general. There is an historical debate. The only post in respect of which, is to mention that the Parliament had a factual and empirical basis to remove juryordningen. Stortingsdokumentene refers inter alia to a study from 1990 that indicate that the jurors themselves did not consider the Norwegian juryordningen as safe. The study included the 252 jurors. All 179 of them – 71 percent – thought it was the safest and most secure to settle the matter with the lawyers, while only 23 – that nine per cent – believed it was the safest in the jury without lawyers. Other 50 thought it was just as safe, or had no idea.

The new meddomsretten consists of five meddommere and two fagdommere. It needed at least five votes to domfelle. Thus, for example, three laymen always block for fellelse. Jurytilhengere believe that fagdommere more color meddommerne when they decide the case together. In return, could thus, the jury's verdict be set aside of fagdommerne. Moreover, were the jury bound by the fagdommerens prior rettsbelæring. In sum, it is difficult to see that lekmannselementet is notably weaker today than during juryordningen.

Spat on the jury Comment