Lay judges and the Swedish rule of law: A qualitative analysis of mixed panels’ argument construction in criminal court cases

Abstract: The purpose of the contemporary lay judge system is to represent society in court and provide insight as well as influence over the nation’s legal process, while still adhering to the legal guidelines of professional judges. However, against the backdrop of globalization of societies and the resulting political polarization, the question is whether the current lay judge system provides an adequate reflection of society within the legal system. The problems raised in this study thus concern cases where lay judges overrule the professional judge when reaching a verdict in Swedish district courts, as well as what reasonings are provided by the dissenting parties. The research questions concern 1) how the lay judge system relates to the rule of law within the Swedish court system, and 2) how lay judges can be compared to their professional counterparts in their argument construction and reasonings. In a thematic analysis of criminal court case documents (N=56) where lay judges overruled the professional judge when reaching a verdict, explicit and implicit reasons for the dissenting opinions between lay judges and professionals are explored. The results include three identified themes regarding the arguments used in assessments of criminal cases for lay and professional judges alike: 1) references to legal sources, 2) Highlighting social norms and values, and 3) Utilizing personal opinions based on subjective perceptions of the details of the case. The results indicate no clear boundary between the roles of lay and professional judges, as the analysis shows no significant differences in their argument construction.