Research at Uppsala University shows differences in how matters are decided depending on which parties nominated jurors. The study is part of a doctoral dissertation to be submitted at Uppsala University.
Adjusted an asylum seeker before a juror nominated by the Sweden Democrats reduces the likelihood of being granted asylum, while the increase in cases where a juror nominated by the Christian Democrats involved.
Linna Martén is an economist at the University of Uppsala and is behind the study.
– These findings suggest that there is a random factor in these decisions. For the individual, this means that anyone who decides if you get asylum or not will affect the likelihood that you get it. And it must be for the individual appear as rättsosäkert.
in the migration courts can it rejected their asylum application to the Swedish Migration Board to have their asylum claim examined again and the case is decided when one judge and three lay judges.
The study is based on all the over 15,500 asylum rulings by immigration courts in Malmö, Gothenburg and Stockholm, between 2011 and 2013 in which jurors participated.
The result shows that there is a statistical link between how many are granted asylum and the political party mentioned the men nominated by.
On average change migration courts 13 percent of the Migration Board’s refusal to consent. But whichever party that nominated the lay varies the probability of getting asylum between 9.5 and 15 percent.
The lowest probability of being granted asylum, it is when jurors nominated by the Sweden Democrats participated, while cases involving lay judges nominated by the Christian Democrats have participated with the highest likelihood of getting approval.
While the Green Party and the Left Party has a statistically significant variation and participate in any more positive decisions than average.
Were you surprised these results?
– Yes, I’d still say that I think they are quite surprising.
What say when the study of the system we have with lay judges who are nominated by the parties?
– It says that the lay judges partisan political background obviously plays a role in decision-making.
In addition Party has study also tried other variables, such as gender, age and non-Nordic background of jurors, but without being able to see that they gave no statistically significant effect on the outcome.
As a general rule, scheduled a juror for service on certain days and cases dealt mainly in the order they come in to court. Any juror who judges in which the goal is therefore completely random, according to the study.
So if you get your case heard a Monday or a Wednesday may affect the outcome?
– Yes, as mentioned overpower the composition may vary from those days, it will be able to influence.
Lay judges are appointed by political parties in municipal and county councils, but should be apolitical in law.
The study confirms the concerns that have been among the mentioned overpower the system’s critics that party politics is to enter the courtroom.
But even if the results show that the variation in results may be explained by what party that nominated the lay, then Linna Martén only speculate how the effect occurs.
– You can imagine that it is affected by each other’s voices. To aggregate the preferences of the jurors and the judge involved, she says.
– There are experimental studies where one can see that when one discussed or had any form of deliberation before making a decision that will affect the outcome compared even if it could not discuss the case before. But it could also be that you can ask questions to an applicant for a hearing and influence in that way. So you do not affect any right but indirectly by highlighting additional information in the case or not.
– What I can say is that there is a variation on the basis of the party, however, I can not say which jurors that take more or less correct decisions, says Linna Martén.
Gregor Noll is Professor in Law at Lund University and has long done research on migration and asylum matters. He believes that the results of the study raises important questions about the Swedish Migration Courts rule of law.
– If I adopts the perspective of seeking asylum there must be very disturbing to see, ok, now I have got into a lay judge from Sweden Democrats, and it can lead to a negative outcome for me. It’s a problem for the justice system’s credibility and hence for legal certainty.
International law include other international legislation concerning the right to asylum under the Geneva Convention, and are encoded in the Swedish legislation Migration Courts judge by.
From an international law perspective, there is according to Gregor Noll more reason to worry for Sweden Democratic control of migration courts as the study indicates, than the other parties’ influence.
– There are people legally problematic is if we deny a person a person should have protection under international refugee law. However, if we give people due to some form of caution assessing the protection that they should not have or need to have, it is no international law perceives as problematic. International law sets the minimum level, he said.
No problem if asylum is granted for generously?
– There are those who argue that asylum is a finite resource that should be handled sparingly and be utilized by people who need it most. But then we are back at the original issue of who most need it, and the problems that are there with a large space for judges and lay judges to make individual assessments of what is protection and not.
– So is a snake biting its tail, so I do not think we should put too much time on that discussion but rather whether we have gone down to a level that is too low in relation to the international legal minimum standards, says Gregor Noll.
No comments:
Post a Comment