Demokratijos ir teismų sprendimų sąveika: kaip gyvena Nemu šalies teismas?
| Author | Affiliation |
|---|---|
| Date |
|---|
2007 |
Šio darbo prasmė yra labiau kelti klausimus, nei bandyti pateikti konstruktyvių atsakymų. Tie klausimai yra tokie: kaip būna žmogus; kokią įtaką jam turi teisės pažeidimas; kaip sprendžiamas teisės klausimas tam tikroje visuomenėje; kokį vaidmenį čia atlieka demokratija ir pliuralizmas; ir bene svarbiausias klausimas, į kurį, tikiuosi, bus ir, matyt, vienintelis deduktyvus atsakymas – ar tikrai teisėjo asmuo gali lemti teisingumo įgyvendinimo procedūros eigą.
The main concept of this paper is to raise questions such as: how person subsistence; how he is affected by the transgression; in what way are the legal questions solved (there is only one way, or it depends on pluralism); how the democracy is involved in legal disputes; and so on. The foundation – stone of the paper is the existentialisms, but not one of Kierkegaard or Sartre, I have chosen lithuanian philosopher A. Maceina and his small book “Drama of Jobo’s” were plot is taken from the Old Testament, where Jobo looses everything, that supposed to be his temporal life. Author reviewed old story from the vantage point of existentialism. I let my self to presume, that the concept of A. Maceina’s existentialism was the liberalism – everything that is temporal it derives from a person and is not ideal; it means it is finite dimension. That is why I use keywords such as: 1) law as an idea – I interpret concept of law as it is in the way of Plato thinking; 2) law as a system – finite dimension of the creation of person; 3) latent law (system) – existing law system, but not concerning a person (that is why I have chosen drama of Jobo’s, trying to show that if having no mater with foundation questions – suffering, guilt, struggle, death – person is lost in the world, has no connection with it); 4) accidental law – it arises when transgression appears, as well all the procedural subjects arises (judge, defense attorney, litigation parties, witness and so on), further more, this law is accidental for another one reason – all those, who steps in to the procedures – are person too – with all of theirs imperfection. Trying to pint point how implementation of justice is being inflicted by the individual pluralism, I thought up the state, called Nemu. In this state justice is being implemented by three judges – Algis, Dalgis, Shepetys. All these three, are completely wise to be the judges of Nemu Court, but as well completely different to bring enough interest in the discussion. I understand, that all of the affairs, that has matter for the legal procedures, can not be physically stressed, so I concentrated on those: 1) formation of the Court (with many inner elements); 2) model of the discretion; 3) modus of the just decision; 4) all other “N” affairs – legal and extra legal: political preferences, turns in statutory law, model of finding the decision and so on.