News

Headlines of last week mainly focused on court rulings where convicted persons were conditionally released from places of imprisonment before serving their full sentence (cases of S. Paulikas and A.Albrechtas) and the judgment in which sentence to imprisonment was suspended (J. Radzevičius case).

I would rather not start discussing the essence of those cases as the judgments passed there may still be challenged and reviewed at courts of higher instances. Nevertheless, it is commendable that the society has started discussing such issues as the application of certain institutes of criminal law, the purpose of penalty, a search for balance between deterrence and punishment as well as a chance for a person to reform without actually serving a custodial sentence or serving a part thereof.

The society is entitled to discuss, question and criticize, while the duty of courts is to explain not only why one or another decision has been taken but also the functioning of the court system in general, why conditional release from places of imprisonment is applied, what aims are sought in suspending a sentence imposed, what circumstances are taken in regard by the court when passing such decisions.

All this, by no means, implies that a judge ought to be afraid of the society’s reaction or to try to indulge the society. There have always been (and will be in the future) controversial court decisions, and it is not exclusively a Lithuanian phenomenon. A point in case could be the world famous Oscar Pistorius trial in South Africa, where the disabled athlete was found not guilty of premeditated murder of his girlfriend. Or the much-publicized decision of Scottish institutions to free from a life sentence the Lockerbie bomber – a Libyan terrorist convicted in connection with the Lockerbie airline bombing in 1988 that killed 270 people.

Any person is entitled to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial court irrespective of how that person is seen by the society and however famous or infamous he may be, while the judge is equally obliged to hear such a case in an impartial way in accordance with the rules of procedure and without giving in to any pressure exercised either by the society or interest groups.

Legal norms have been created to cover all cases though they are to be applied in specific circumstances, thus a judge is faced with a difficult task to produce convincing argument why that particular decision was right in those specific circumstances. This enables the judge to feel having completed his mission and having administered justice, while the duty of both the institutions of judicial self-governance and heads of courts is to defend judges against groundless or unconstructive criticism. A courageous judge, who is able to resist any outside influence and is not afraid of possibly unfavorable reaction of the society, is a guarantee for the maturity of both the judicial system and the democratic state itself.