| Abstract | U uvodu ovog diplomskog rada se objašnjava razlika između prisjedničkog i porotničkog suđenja. To su dva osnovna oblika sudjelovanja laika (osoba iz puka) u sudskim postupcima. Drugo poglavlje započinje navođenjem prvih pojavnih oblika „narodnog“ suđenja. Nakon toga, istražuju se korijeni suvremenog pojma porote u franačkom i normanskom pravu na području Engleske. Zatim se istražuje utjecaj anglosaksonske (common law) porote na području kontinentalne Europe, ponajprije Francuske. Nakon navođenja povijesnog razvoja porotničkog suđenja, objašnjavaju se izvori prisjedničkog suda u germanskom i franačkom pravu. Pri kraju drugog poglavlja istražuje se pojava prisjedničkog suđenja (i samog pojma porotnika) na području Republike Hrvatske. Započinje se srednjim vijekom te zatim dolazi do „skoka“ u 19. stoljeće. U tom stoljeću dolazi prvi puta do porotničkog suđenja na području Republike Hrvatske preko austrijskog utjecaja u Austro-Ugarskoj Monarhiji. Kroz stoljeće donose se neki zakoni koji uređuju porotničko suđenje, no samo u tiskovnim deliktima. Krajem Prvog svjetskog rata nastaje Kraljevina Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca te kasnije i Kraljevina Jugoslavija u kojima nema spominjanja sudaca porotnika. Ta činjenica se mijenja u Ustavu Federativne Narodne Republike Jugoslavije iz 1946. u kojemu se navodi da u suđenju pred kotarskim i okružnim sudovima sudjeluju prisjednici. Slično uređenje se nastavlja, uze manje promjene, kroz cijelo razdoblje Jugoslavije do 1990. godine. Zatim se prikazuje trenutni sustav uređenje prisjedničkog suđenja u Republici Hrvatskoj. Ono je uređeno ponajprije Zakonom o sudovima i Zakonom o kaznenom postupku, te još nekim posebnim zakonima. Kako bi se mogla izvršiti usporedba između angloameričke porote i prisjedničkog suđenja u Republici Hrvatskoj, četvrto poglavlje je posvećeno poroti u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama. U petom se poglavlju provodi ta usporedba različitosti i sličnosti. U šestom poglavlju, prije samog zaključka, se navode neke prednosti i nedostaci prisjedničkog suđenja. |
| Abstract (english) | The introduction to this thesis explains the difference between the two types of jury trial. These are the two basic forms of participation of laymen (persons from the common people) in court proceedings. The second chapter begins by listing the first forms of the "people's" trial. After that, the roots of the modern concept of jury in Frankish and Norman law in England are explored. Next, the influence of the Anglo-Saxon (common law) jury on the territory of continental Europe, primarily France, is investigated. After stating the historical development of the jury trial, the sources of the presidential court in Germanic and Frankish law are explained. At the end of the second chapter, the emergence of the jury trial (and the concept of juror itself) in the territory of the Republic of Croatia is investigated. It begins in the Middle Ages and then there is a "jump" into the 19th century. In that century, there was a jury trial for the first time in the territory of the Republic of Croatia due to the Austrian influence in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Throughout the century, some laws were passed regulating trial by jury, but only in press torts. At the end of the First World War, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and later the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was created, in which there is no mention of jury judges. This fact was changed in the Constitution of the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia from 1946, which states that judges participate in trials before district courts. A similar arrangement continued, with minor changes, throughout the entire period of Yugoslavia until 1990. Next, the current system of organizing jury trials in the Republic of Croatia is presented. It is regulated primarily by the Law on Courts and the Law on Criminal Procedure, as well as some other special laws. In order to make a comparison between the Anglo-American jury and the jury trial in the Republic of Croatia, the fourth chapter is dedicated to the jury in the United States of America. In the fifth chapter, this comparison of differences and similarities is carried out. In the sixth chapter, before the conclusion itself, some advantages and disadvantages of the jury trial are stated. |
