The question of lay participation may be a relevant reform question. Some people are asking whether lay participation is a needed component in the adjudication of criminal cases. Many scholars in countries with lay assessor systems believe that lay participation has little or no effect on the outcome of criminal cases and performs a function of democratic legitimation. Many in common law countries with juries continue to criticize the jury’s expense, arbitrariness, and marginality as a result of the practice of plea-bargaining. Conference proceedings included discussion on the jury in Belgium, the lay assessor system in China, the mixed tribunal in Croatia, the Danish jury, an England and Wales report, and the development of Finnish evidence law and court structure. Lay participation in France, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Russia, Scotland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland was discussed. Special reports included the 19th century debate about juries and mixed courts; the advantages and disadvantages of lay judges in Sweden; suppression of evidence in Russian trials; a Supreme Court inspired agenda for jury research; and the questions of fact and law in Russian jury trials. The interaction between lay assessors and professional judges and the influence of lay assessors in German mixed court is discussed. Lay participation issues are also discussed for the South Pacific, Argentina, the British Empire, and France. The paradoxes of lay and professional decisionmaking in common law criminal systems are focused on. Lay participation and consensual disposition mechanisms and the limitations on trial by jury are discussed.