Canon laws oriented to Lay Justice

[AndyF]

Hello all:

Can anyone tell me what canons relate to situations of Justice involving decision making?. Specifically the right to know the reasons why an assembly chose a specific course or action, or not to grant something.

In a civil context I guess it would be an instrument of due process, where a breach to the rule would be to refuse to divulge why a verdict was made in such a case, or, put another way what evidence produced a certain verdict.

I’m not saying they are the same has I know one is an adversarial process.

Perhaps rules for lay hearings and tribunals and specific rights of protocol,etc

Thanks

(Hope this isn’t a tall order. )

Andy

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Two books have helped me a great deal in my study of Canon Law.

*“The Concise Guide to Canon Law” *and “The Concise Guide to Your Rights in the Catholic Church”. Both written by Fr. Kevin McKenna and published by Ave Maria Press.

Fr. McKenna does a great job of making canon law very easy to understand.

I would start with these.

 

[Ocarm]

Can anyone tell me what canons relate to situations of Justice involving decision making?

I think I understand what you’re asking for, in which case canons 1607-1618 may answer your questions.

See vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P6B.HTM

Canons 1619-1640 and afterwards develop these matters further. Follow the links to the next page at the bottom of the page to which I’ve linked, and so on as required.

On the other hand, I may not have understood what you were asking for, in which case I can’t help.

Best wishes.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Hello all:

Can anyone tell me what canons relate to situations of Justice involving decision making?. Specifically the right to know the reasons why an assembly chose a specific course or action, or not to grant something.

In a civil context I guess it would be an instrument of due process, where a breach to the rule would be to refuse to divulge why a verdict was made in such a case, or, put another way what evidence produced a certain verdict.

I’m not saying they are the same has I know one is an adversarial process.

Perhaps rules for lay hearings and tribunals and specific rights of protocol,etc

Thanks

(Hope this isn’t a tall order. )

Andy

Like OCarm I am not too sure to what your question relates. It is my understanding that all matters before one of the Church’s tribunals are held in what civil law may call in camera. In other words they are never open to the public or the press. Very often not all the parties to a case or the witnesses are present at oral hearings. When a tribunal issues the decree giving its final judgement I understand that only the parties to the case receive this information. I presume certain others may receive this information, e.g. defender of the bond. If the judges state their reasons for their judgement this will only be given to the parties to the case and will not be made public.

 

[Vince1022]

H Specifically the right to know the reasons why an assembly chose a specific course or action, or not to grant something.

No canon laws apply to that situation.

 

[Spirithound]

Can anyone tell me what canons relate to situations of Justice involving decision making?. Specifically the right to know the reasons why an assembly chose a specific course or action, or not to grant something.

What sort of assembly?

 

[AndyF]

Thanks all for your help!

Andy

 

[PacoG]

In a civil context I guess it would be an instrument of due process, where a breach to the rule would be to refuse to divulge why a verdict was made in such a case, or, put another way what evidence produced a certain verdict.

In the civil context, there is no such rule that requires jurors to divulge how they reached a certain verdict. Actually, it’s the other way around…jurors’ deliberations are considered privileged and protected by law. The only time one can pierce the secrecy of jury deliberations is when there allegations of juror misconduct, and, then in that case, you can only inquire as to what the circumstances surrounding the misconduct and not the juror’s thought processes and reasoning for the verdict.

Similarly, unless they are required by law (and that’s in a small amount of cases) or the specifics of the case require it, judges aren’t required to render opinions with their orders.

Appellate tribunals render opinions because of the doctrine of stare decisis. They render opinions not because due process considerations but because the lower courts look to their opinions as decisional authority.