The purpose of the research is to compare French and Italian juries through a socio-anthropological study of judicial practice in criminal courts. It reports on the different experiences of jurors by carefully studying court procedure, as well as the interactions and relations between laymen and legal professionals within a session. What are the main findings that emerge from comparing French and Italian juries? They can broadly be divided into three parts. Firstly, observation of "the law in motion" reveals that, despite the theoretical similarities between the two systems, the practicalities of involving citizens in judging crimes are different in France and Italy. It is then possible to examine the mechanics in view of the legal culture in both countries and, in return, the characteristics of their juries give us an insight into France and Italy’s democratic values. Secondly, juries appear to be a "socializing institution" for individuals who are required to attend court. This element of socialization has a decisive influence on the "authentic experience" of jurors, making it a "direct experience" of the suffering of others and the functioning of democracy. Thirdly, comparing French and Italian juries provides an opportunity to reflect on modern times and the current issues surrounding the presence of laymen within the judiciary. Juries may be seen as a "worthy" institution able to restore the credibility of the judicial system, stimulate legal professionals and raise individual awareness amongst jurors of the importance of their participation in maintaining social cohesion.
L’obiettivo di questa ricerca è di mettere a confronto la giuria popolare francese con quella italiana sviluppando uno studio socio-antropologico basato sulla pratica giudiziaria osservabile nelle corte d’assise. Si è cercato di mostrare le differenze nel modo di vivere l’esperienza di giurato osservando accuratamente, per ciascuno dei due contesti, il rituale giudiziario, le interazioni e le relazioni tra componenti laici e togati presenti durante una sessione. Quali sono i principali risultati che emergono dal paragone delle giurie popolari francesi e italiane? Ne emergono soprattutto tre. Primo, sebbene ci siano delle somiglianze dell’impianto teorico su cui si fondano i due sistemi della giuria popolare, l’osservazione del “diritto in movimento” rivela quanto il loro funzionamento pratico sia diverso. Si descrivono nei dettagli i meccanismi del funzionamento della giuria popolare mettendoli in rapporto con la cultura giuridica di ogni paese mostrandoci, allo specchio, le caratteristiche dei loro costumi democratici. Secondo, la giuria popolare appare come un’“istituzione di sociabilità” per chi vi prende parte. La dimensione sociale influisce sull’“esperienza autentica” vissuta dai giurati agendo direttamente sul modo di percepire la sofferenza altrui e del funzionamento dei processi democratici. Terzo, il confronto tra giuria francese e italiana ci permette di porre l’accento sull’attuale modernità di questa istituzione e sulle sue implicazioni nel funzinamento della corte d'assise. La giuria popolare può essere considerata come un’”istituzione buona” in grado di contribuire all’attendibilità del procedimento giuridico, di conferire autorevolezza alla pratica quotidiana dei magistrati togati e di indurre la consapevolezza, in ogni giudice popolare, dell’importanza della sua partecipazione attiva per il mantenimento del legame sociale.
La participation des citoyens à la fonction de juger en France et en Italie: une étude socio-anthropologique du jury populaire en cour d'assises / A. Jolivet ; tutor: J.-P. Payet, V. Ferrari. UNIVERSITA' DEGLI STUDI DI MILANO, 2012 Dec 12. 19. ciclo, Anno Accademico 2006. [10.13130/jolivet-anne_phd2012-12-12].
La participation des citoyens à la fonction de juger en France et en Italie: une étude socio-anthropologique du jury populaire en cour d'assises.
A. Jolivet
2012
Abstract
The purpose of the research is to compare French and Italian juries through a socio-anthropological study of judicial practice in criminal courts. It reports on the different experiences of jurors by carefully studying court procedure, as well as the interactions and relations between laymen and legal professionals within a session. What are the main findings that emerge from comparing French and Italian juries? They can broadly be divided into three parts. Firstly, observation of "the law in motion" reveals that, despite the theoretical similarities between the two systems, the practicalities of involving citizens in judging crimes are different in France and Italy. It is then possible to examine the mechanics in view of the legal culture in both countries and, in return, the characteristics of their juries give us an insight into France and Italy’s democratic values. Secondly, juries appear to be a "socializing institution" for individuals who are required to attend court. This element of socialization has a decisive influence on the "authentic experience" of jurors, making it a "direct experience" of the suffering of others and the functioning of democracy. Thirdly, comparing French and Italian juries provides an opportunity to reflect on modern times and the current issues surrounding the presence of laymen within the judiciary. Juries may be seen as a "worthy" institution able to restore the credibility of the judicial system, stimulate legal professionals and raise individual awareness amongst jurors of the importance of their participation in maintaining social cohesion.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
phd_unimi_R05682.pdf
Open Access dal 01/02/2013
Tipologia:
Tesi di dottorato completa
Dimensione
5.63 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
5.63 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.