Advantages and Disadvantages of Lay Magistrates - Essay Example

Lay Magistrates Introduction: Lay Magistrates are an important part of the English legal system because they enable participation in the justice system from a wider cross section of the public. These magistrates do nor require formal qualifications in law, but must be individuals of sound character with good public awareness. The advantages associated with the use of lay magistrates are the lower costs, the facility of less expensive and competent training, local awareness and the involvement of a greater cross section of the public, thereby ensuring that public concerns are adequately addressed. However the disadvantages are the lack of consistency in the decisions and variations in decisions from one local area to another. Moreover, there also appears to be a prosecution bias where lay magistrates are concerned, which in turn adds to the inconsistent sentencing which may not therefore conform to justice. Moreover, while women are better represented among lay magistrates, there is still a deficiency of ethnic minorities in the lay magistrate system. Role of Lay Magistrates: Lay Magistrates are individuals who are selected from among the wider public and are generally middle aged individuals from diverse careers who come forward to administer justice on an unpaid basis. They do not require formal qualifications in law, but must have good character, sound judgment, public awareness, maturity, commitment and understanding so that they are able to conceive of and understand the problems they are faced with from the local public. They undergo training which is not as extensive as for regular magistrates but is geared towards imparting competence in adjudication and undergo their apprentice ship with a legally trained clerk. Therefore, the role of the lay magistrates is to provide an alternative system of justice for the lay public, which is not as expensive as regular litigation. Advantages of Lay magistrates: Lay Magistrates are important because they provide an indication of a truly representative democracy, wherein the dynamic will of the people is incorporated into the process of governance, thereby enhancing their role to something more than public spiritedness. (Raine 1989). Since lay magistrates are members called upon from the public, this ensures that the professional bodies such as lawyers, judges, police, etc are kept in touch with the concerns and attitudes of the public. Lay magistrates are able to satisfy the aspect that may be referred to as local justice, wherein they are sensitive to local concerns and conditions prevailing within the local market and services infrastructure.(Bankowski et al, 1987:20). Since lay magistrates are supposed to live within 15 miles of the area where the case jurisdiction falls, they have the local knowledge of the area and are able to deliver judgments which are in tune with the local problems of that particular area.(Martin 2003). Lay Magistrates may also have a fresh, less bureaucratic approach to adjudication. Since they are brought in from various professions and do not regularly attend to the business of dispensation of justice, they are not the hard core, cynical professionals that the regular magistrates may sometimes become – being skeptical and developing a case hardened approach, which may sometimes be inimical to the cause of justice. Regular magistrates are generally drawn from the professional classes and have little knowledge of local problems in poorer areas (Martin, 2003) Lay magistrates allow for cross representation from a wide section of the public, and there is a higher involvement of women in the judiciary than there is in the traditional justice system where most of the magistrates tend to be professionals - white, older males who have little in common with the young defendants who are brought to trial. Moreover, since there is also some degree of training imparted to lay magistrates, they may not be complete amateurs. Another significant advantage of using lay magistrates is the cost factor. As opposed to regular trials in the Crown Court which may be expensive, time consuming and therefore out of the reach of most litigants, the cost of a trial a lay magistrate’s court is much less and these magistrates are also unpaid, therefore the cost involved in using lay magistrates in the legal system is substantially lower. Disadvantages of lay magistrates: The disadvantage of lay magistrates is that regular magistrates may be better acquainted with national standards of decision making, hence their decisions are likely to enjoy a greater degree of consistency. Hood (1972) points to the differences in decision making between lay courts and national courts. Lay magistrates are trained through the process of apprenticeship and are trained by their clerks, therefore they are only conversant with their local conditions and hence their decision making may tend to fall in line with what they know and believe. On the other hand, regular magistrates who are formally trained through rigorous induction and training in the process of law are more likely to rely upon evidence and the rule of law in arriving at their decisions. There is also inconsistency in sentencing in the courts where lay magistrates operate. They appear to be more lenient in sentencing and there may be differences in numbers of people sent to prison from one local area to another, which poses a worrying trend for the consistency of the justice system. While the magistrates have the facility of being able to avail of the services of a clerk acquainted with the law and well qualified in the principles of law, these clerks are not allowed to advice the lay magistrate on the sentence, therefore it may not be helpful in alleviating the problems of inconsistency in sentencing. Moreover, lay magistrates also appear to be somewhat more gullible as compared to their more experienced and legally qualified colleagues who are regular magistrates, because they tend to believe the police readily, thereby creating a prosecution bias which is not helpful in achieving true justice for the defendants in some cases. (Martin, 2003). The jury system that makes use of regular magistrates involves an elaborate trial which may be more expensive but tends to further the cause of justice by being more impartial, thereby giving the justice system the appearance of a more democratic system. Regular magistrates are well trained in the law, through a rigorous procedure and extensive practice in the application of the law, before they are in a position to sit in as magistrates. Therefore, they are able to apply consistent standards of justice through a uniform application of the law in every case, thereby producing less disparity in sentencing. References: * Bankowski, Z.K, Hutton, N.R. and McNamus, J.J., 1987. “Lay Justice” Edinburgh: T& T Clark * Hood, R, 1972. “Sentencing the Motoring Offender.” London” Heinemann * Martin, J, 2003. “The English Legal System” London” Hodder Arnold. * Raine, J.W, 1989. “Local Justice: ideals and reality.” Edinburgh: T&T Clark Read More