Incapability Of Juries To Hear Complex Fraud And Sensitive Cases: A Myth Developed by Executive

Jürilerin Karmaşık Dolandırıcılık Davaları ile Hassas Davalarda Yargı Yetkisizliği: Yürütme Erki Tarafından Geliştirilen Bir Mit

Nazım Ziyadov

This article analyzes the recent status of trials used with respect to hearings of specific crimes in the Russian Federation and England. For purposes of this research, England, which is part of the larger criminal justice system of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was selected as a representative of the native jury trial country, whereas the Russian Federation is considered as a country that uses this institution as a legal transplant artificially incorporated in its legal system. Based on review of positions of the executive authorities with respect to two categories of criminal cases, i.e. complex fraud cases and sensitive criminal cases (national security cases and terrorism cases), this research argues that the executive authorities, who are the main authors of the legislative proposals intending to limit jury trial jurisdiction in both of the countries, do not necessarily show proper justification for such proposals. In fact, contrary to their justifications, as it is argued, juries can be capable decision-makers even in trials of complex or sensitive cases if necessary precautions are applied.

Jury Trials, Complex Fraud Trials, Trial of Sensitive Criminal Cases, Jury Comprehension.

Bu çalışma, Rusya Federasyonu ile İngiltere’de belirli suçlara ilişkin davalarda kullanılan muhakemelerin mevcut durumlarını analiz etmektedir. Bu araştırma çerçevesinde, Büyük Britanya ve Kuzey İrlanda Birleşik Krallığı’nın daha kapsamlı olan ceza adaleti sisteminin bir parçası olan İngiltere, jüri yargılamasının doğal olduğu bir ülkeyi temsil etmek üzere seçilmiştir; bunun yanı sıra, Rusya Federasyonu, bu kurumu, hukuk sistemine suni olarak iktibas ederek kullanan bir ülke olarak ele alınmaktadır. Karmaşık dolandırıcılık davaları ve hassas ceza davaları (ulusal güvenlik davaları ve terör davaları) gibi ceza davalarının iki kategorisi ile ilgili yetkili makamların durumlarının incelenmesini temel alan bu çalışma, her iki ülkede de jüri yargılamasını sınırlandırma amacını taşıyan yasa tekliflerini hazırlayanların başında gelen yetkili makamların, anılan yasa teklifleri için tam anlamıyla uygun gerekçeler göstermediklerini savunmaktadır. Oysa, gerekçelerinin aksine, savunulduğu üzere, jüriler, gerekli önlemler uygulandığı takdirde, karmaşık veya hassas davalarda bile muktedir karar mercileri olabilmektedirler.

Jüri Yargılaması, Karmaşık Dolandırıcılık Davaları, Hassas Ceza Davalarında Yargılama, Jürinin Kavrama Kabiliyeti.

I. INTRODUCTION

The approach to jury participation in trials varies by country. The jury practice is absent from most national judicial systems, and in countries where trial by jury was historically common, there is now a growing tendency to limit this form of public participation in justice administration.¹ Some countries, such as Spain and Russia, have introduced new reforms to their criminal justice systems seeking to revive the practice of trial by jury.² Nonetheless, even in these countries (notably Russia) the actual number of trials by jury remains fairly limited. Russia’s current jury system has been heavily criticized, and the legislative reforms clearly demonstrate how the Russian government is attempting to reduce the practice of trial by jury.³ Similar measures have also been taken by governments of other jury trial countries.

As far as native jury countries are concerned, there has always been strong public support in favor of trials by juries.⁴ But such countries, including England,⁵ have also introduced changes to their criminal justice systems that have influenced the (limited) jurisdiction of trials by juries.⁶

The increasing desire to limit jury trials, shared by both native jury trial countries like the United Kingdom and new jury trial countries like Russia, raises a number of questions. Why do governments of native and non-native jury trial counties try to limit the application of jury trials? What motivates them?