Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials Act」 has come to effect on Jan. 1, 2008. The Act introduced the new Citizen participation system, and it is regarded as a drastic change of the korean judiciary system. The purpose of the new citizen participation system are to reinforce the democratic legitimacy of the judicial process, to enhance the transparency and credibility of the judiciary, and disseminate the legal mind and the reasonable thinking culture in the public. But this new citizen participation system is looked like a transitional legal system as a result of its incomplete status, which mainly caused by the fact that a jury’s verdict is legally admitted as a recommended effect only. That is to say, the jury decides the guilty or not guilty in order to recommend its opinion to the court. In explaining the procedure, the guilty or not guilty verdict should be unanimous in principle, however, when the jurors cannot reach an unanimous verdict, they must consult with the court before deciding by a simple majority. Though the verdict of the jury is non-binding, the court must have regard to it, and must give reasons when the court returns a different verdict from the jury’s. In case of guilty, the jurors also give their individual opinion on the sentence of the accused, which is non-binding as well. In conclusion, it is impossible to reflect the citizen’s sense and value into the judicial system if the verdict of jurors has not its substantial effect. Comparatively speaking, the citizens who are participate in the criminal trial, not only in jury system but also in any other systems, make their own effective and substantial decisions in criminal trials. I think the jury should have their own authority in making their decisions, and so the decisions they made should have substantial effect in criminal trials

Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials Act」 has come to effect on Jan. 1, 2008. The Act introduced the new Citizen participation system, and it is regarded as a drastic change of the korean judiciary system. The purpose of the new citizen participation system are to reinforce the democratic legitimacy of the judicial process, to enhance the transparency and credibility of the judiciary, and disseminate the legal mind and the reasonable thinking culture in the public. But this new citizen participation system is looked like a transitional legal system as a result of its incomplete status, which mainly caused by the fact that a jury’s verdict is legally admitted as a recommended effect only. That is to say, the jury decides the guilty or not guilty in order to recommend its opinion to the court. In explaining the procedure, the guilty or not guilty verdict should be unanimous in principle, however, when the jurors cannot reach an unanimous verdict, they must consult with the court before deciding by a simple majority. Though the verdict of the jury is non-binding, the court must have regard to it, and must give reasons when the court returns a different verdict from the jury’s. In case of guilty, the jurors also give their individual opinion on the sentence of the accused, which is non-binding as well. In conclusion, it is impossible to reflect the citizen’s sense and value into the judicial system if the verdict of jurors has not its substantial effect. Comparatively speaking, the citizens who are participate in the criminal trial, not only in jury system but also in any other systems, make their own effective and substantial decisions in criminal trials. I think the jury should have their own authority in making their decisions, and so the decisions they made should have substantial effect in criminal trials

citizen participation in criminal trials, citizen participation system,jury system, citizen participation in criminal trials act