The judges are functionaries of the State. They are appointed by the Government, paid by the Government, and may be removed by the Government. In every commune, however small, there is a judge who forms an ex officio member of the Communal Council, elected by the in-habitants. These communal judges have very limited juris-diction. They have no power to inflict personal punishment in criminal cases; all they can do is to impose a fine, not exceeding sixteen shillings in amount, for a breach of the law; and in civil cases they only possess the right of summary jurisdiction when the amount at issue does not exceed £2. Their sentences have to be submitted to the approval of the district judges of the district in which the commune is situated.
These district judges hold office on the same tenure as the communal judges, but their jurisdiction is more extensive. They can impose fines to the extent of £2, and can decide suits concerning sums not exceeding £4; they may also try charges of theft, not aggravated by violence. Next in the legal hierarchy come the judges of First Instance, who hold courts in the chef lieux of every province. They have authority to adjudicate in all civil and criminal cases, but their decision may be referred to the Courts of Appeal, of which there are four in Bulgaria; and from these courts there lies a reference to the Supreme Court of Appeal at Sofia.
Opinion of the Government
Trial by jury is still amidst the reforms of the future. In the opinion of the Government, the country is not yet ripe for its institution. The present generation of adult peasants have had little or no education; and their ideas of justice are formed on what may be called the Cadi principle. When a new generation comes to the front, which has been educated at the national schools, and which has learned discipline in the national army, the peasants, it is thought, may become fit to act as jurymen ; but as things are, the estimation in which a Bulgarian prisoner might hold, whether for good or bad, in the opinion of his fellowtownsmen, would have much more to do with his conviction or acquittal, than the strength of the evidence connecting him with the perpetration of the particular crime of which he stood accused.
In the Courts of First Instance, however, a system has been of late years introduced, which possesses some of the advantages of trial by jury. In all criminal cases of a serious character, a certain number of towns-peoplemen, as a rule, of some education and local standingare appointed to sit with the judges and to hear the evidence adduced for or against the prisoner.
When the case is concluded, the verdict is given by the judges and assessors in conjunction, the vote of the majority deciding the question of guilt or innocence. With the giving of the verdict of “ Guilty ” or ” Not guilty,” the functions of the assessors are at an end; and the question of the punishment to be inflicted, in the event of conviction, is left to the sole arbitrament of the judges. Thus, in cases where political bias may be supposed to enter, the prisoner has the advantage of being tried before a tribunal composed of private citizens as well as of functionaries of the Government townsmen, would have much more to do with his conviction or acquittal, than the strength of the evidence connecting him with the perpetration of the particular crime of which he stood accused. In the Courts of First Instance, however, a system has been of late years introduced, which possesses some of the advantages of trial by jury. In all criminal cases of a serious character, a certain number of towns-people—men, as a rule, of some education and local standing—are appointed to sit with the judges and to hear the evidence adduced for or against the prisoner.
When the case is concluded, the verdict is given by the judges and assessors in conjunction, the vote of the majority deciding the question of guilt or innocence. With the giving of the verdict of “ Guilty ” or ” Not guilty,” the functions of the assessors are at an end; and the question of the punishment to be inflicted, in the event of conviction, is left to the sole arbitrament of the judges. Thus, in cases where political bias may be supposed to enter, the prisoner has the advantage of being tried before a tribunal composed of private citizens as well as of functionaries of the Government
No comments:
Post a Comment