Legal decision-making is shaped by a variety of factors, including cultural norms, societal values, and professional training. This study explores the differences and similarities in how legal decisions are made by legal professionals and lay people in two distinct cultural contexts: Korea and the United States. Through a comparative analysis, the research investigates how cultural, legal, and social factors influence the decision-making processes of legal professionals (judges, lawyers) and lay individuals (jurors, citizens) in both countries. The study employs a mixed-methods approach, combining surveys and in-depth interviews with legal professionals and lay people to identify the key factors that impact legal judgments in each society. The results reveal significant differences in the role of societal values, legal education, and the perceived role of law in shaping legal outcomes. While American legal decision-making tends to emphasize individual rights and adversarial proceedings, Korean decision-making reflects a more collectivist and harmony-oriented approach. The study provides insights into how cultural dimensions influence the interpretation of law, the role of empathy and community, and the balance between fairness and justice in legal proceedings. Ultimately, the research contributes to the growing understanding of cross-cultural legal processes and suggests the need for culturally sensitive approaches in international legal cooperation and comparative legal studies.

This paper examines the impact of Section 24 of Nigeria’s Criminal Code on criminal liability, focusing on how this provision shapes the interpretation of intent and responsibility in criminal cases. Section 24, which addresses the principle of mens rea—the guilty mind required for criminal liability—stipulates the conditions under which individuals may be held accountable for criminal acts. This study explores how Section 24 influences judicial decisions by analyzing its application in Nigerian courts, particularly in cases involving negligence, intent, and strict liability offenses. By investigating key cases and legal interpretations, the paper highlights both the strengths and limitations of Section 24 in defining criminal liability. The findings suggest that while Section 24 provides a foundational framework for establishing intent, its application raises complex questions about accountability, especially in cases involving mental incapacity or involuntary actions. Ultimately, this study calls for a critical review of Section 24 to ensure it aligns with evolving legal standards and the principles of justice.

This article analyzes the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings. The norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan on the admissibility of evidence are analyzed. Based on the results of the analysis and research, the author's substantiated proposals and recommendations were developed.