On February 6, 2004, several amendments were implemented to the Constitution of Georgia. Among the constitutional amendments, one of the notable novelties was the legal reservation made in paragraph 5 of article 82 of the Constitution of Georgia, according to the above mentioned constitutional amendment – ‘the cases in the courts are heard by juries as it is prescribed by the rules of Georgia’. At the same time, by the efforts of the Georgian governmental and non-governmental sectors, a new Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia was finally drafted by the leislative power (Parliament of Georgia) in October 2009 and entered into force on October 1, 2010. The new Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia introduced a jury institute in certain criminal cases in Georgia. Recently, in practice, there are already several criminal cases heard by jurors in Georgia. On the other hand – according to article 226 of the new criminal procedure code of Georgia: ‘The case shall be heard by a jury if the charges are brought under articles 108 Intentional killing (completed), etc. The present research works goal is to discuss the Trial by Jury in the context of democratic values and to analyze to what extent is the jury is an opportunity for establishing democratic justice. I will try to answer the questions: Is it justified to introduce the jury in Georgia? Whether a jury trial is the More Democracy or an Ideal of Democracy? – although the “ideal” expresses the perfection of something and the “ideal” as such does not exist in nature. But the primary function of modern democratic institutions is to fill the gap between ideal and reality.
the jury ~ Judicary System ~ Trial by a Jury ~ Ideal of Democracy ~ Judge
The penalties stipulated for crimes are determined by considering the possibility of violating the crime type once. However, it is possible to violate the same type of crime more than once or different types of crimes with one or more acts. Aggregation rules bring solutions to the responsibility of the perpetrator and in this context how to determine the punishment to be given in case of more than one crime committed by a person. According to the majority of Islamic jurists, if the same crime is committed more than once before the penalty is given, one punishment is sufficient. If different crimes with different punishments are committed, as a rule, the punishment of each is given separately. First, the punishment where personal rights are dominant or the death penalty that does not allow the implementation of other punishments is started. If the punishment of different crimes is of the same type, it is contented with the application of the heaviest. The crimes that are the elements of rebellion (bağy), highway robbery (hırabe) and apostasy from Islam (ridde) which are compound crimes are not also punished. However, real aggregation rules are applied in the crimes of rebels like commiting fornication (zina) and drinking wine (şürb) which are not elements of rebellion (bağy). It is essential to apply the material (real) aggregation rules in crimes committed against individuals. Tadahul in hadd is the state of being contented with one hadd penalty due to the crimes committed more than once. A punishment of qazif is given to those accused of adultery with one word or another. In fact, although one has committed as many crimes as the number of victims, one is contented with the punishment of one crime in accordance with aggregation provisions
Islamic criminal law, Ottoman law, offense, aggregation of offenses, tadahul