It shouldn't cost you money to do your civic duty

Lay judges, ordinary citizens tasked with participating in criminal trials that could lead to imprisonment, are facing a significant financial burden due to stagnant compensation. The stipends for these crucial roles have not been adjusted in 25 years. While lay judges are entitled to time off work for court duty, their employers are not obligated to pay them during this period. This means individuals must personally absorb the income loss to fulfill their civic duty, a situation described as an overlooked but substantial problem.

“

We have decided that it is important to have the people represented, so it is not only legal judges who decide whether a person is guilty or innocent. It is fundamentally about our rule of law and democracy, and we must protect that.

Karsten Lauritzen, CEO of Danske Advokater and former Minister of Taxation, argues that this financial disparity undermines the principles of the rule of law and democracy. He emphasizes that citizens already contribute through taxes and should not have to incur out-of-pocket expenses to maintain the justice system. Lauritzen calls on politicians to ensure that stipends are regularly adjusted to keep pace with inflation and average wages, preventing the gradual erosion of the justice system's integrity.

“

Therefore, it is an overlooked, but large, problem that the compensation for lay judges has not been regulated in 25 years.

The Danish Court Administration estimates that bringing lay judge stipends up to current average wage levels would cost approximately 32 million kroner per year. This amount is considered manageable within the context of the multi-year budget for the courts, which totals 2.3 billion kroner. Lauritzen frames the issue as one of political priorities and willingness to fund essential democratic functions.

“

You and I must therefore personally put money into maintaining the principles of the rule of law. We already do that, incidentally, through taxes.

The article also features two distinct opinion pieces. One, by David Munis Zepernick, laments a drastic decline in birth rates, linking it to a potential weakening of the nation's foundation. The second, by Hanne Tidemand, proposes a more geographically equitable distribution of Denmark's approximately 50 wolves. Tidemand suggests relocating wolves to various regions, including Sjælland and Bornholm, to ensure all Danes can experience the presence of this predator and its ecological impacts, rather than concentrating the debate and consequences in rural areas.

“

Therefore, the message to politicians is very simple: if you want to boast that we have a well-functioning rule of law, and that everyone is equal before the law, then you must also be willing to pay the price.