"Should lay magistrates be replaced with professional judges?" Discuss

Although judges perform a similar sort of job there are many differences between the way in which they work, they are full time, sit alone and are found more within the larger cities they are rarely found within local communities. They are members of the professional judiciary who are legally qualified and salaried, working full time whereas the lay magistrate are not paid, and work part time, but may claim expenses and an allowance for loss of earnings. These judges would of also have practised at least 7 years as a barrister or solicitor first off. Like all other judges they are criticised for being to out of touch with society and there are few women or ethnic minority judges.

The reasons for keeping lay magistrates would be that it provides a cheaper way to administer justice and is a speedy way of dispensing justice. To replace Lay magistrates we would need 4,000 professional judges, costing well over £100 million a year in salaries and the additional cost of educating additional lawyers to fill the positions. "Magistrates are often able, for the most part conscientious, usually well-meaning and give generously of their time for no material reward" ( The Times Nov 9 1999)

Magistrates also fully complete 10% of cases within the court without any headlines or fuss ( The Times Nov 1999). Magistrates are said to have a good knowledge of the community within they operate and work in its best interests. If you took away the lay element it would deprive the administration of justice of valuable citizen participation. This system seems to work as there are lack of appeals and are more representative with a wider cross section of society, this method has also lasted over 800 years. They are usually well meaning and give generously of their time for no material reward using their local knowledge to the best of their ability. Also they will know the local circumstances and how people feel about certain crimes or type of crime and therefore when in court can reflect the opinions of locals, and take appropriate action to those people doing this. There is also an aspect of social awareness, understanding the community and respect for people of all races and cultures.

The reasons for getting rid of the lay magistrates and replacing them with qualified judges would be the fact that magistrates come from the professional and managerial classes. Therefore it is unlikely that they live in, or have any real knowledge of the problems in the poorer areas. This is because about 84% of Lay Magistrates are from the middle classes and are referred as middle class, "middle aged, middle classed and middle minded," therefore their lifestyle leaves them out of touch with most people they deal with within the court (quote taken from law machine video ). They are also not aware of much fact or legal knowledge which leaves them relying to much on the clerk or to much reliance of the police evidence. There are more men than women (approximately 16,000 male J.P's to 14,000 female J.P's). A few years ago ethnic minorities comprised less than 2%, they tend to be prosecution minded believing the police to readily. Only 20% or defendants are found not guilty. Also a concern is the fact that their inconsistent with other benches of magistrates elsewhere in the country in the sentences they pass, so that for similar offences people may receive different treatment. It is possible that defendants who are not guilty are more likely to choose jury trial where that option is open to them, so leaving a higher proportion of guilty defendants who make a not guilty plea in the magistrates court. " The reality is that the magistracy is undemocratic and unrepresentative, and causes serious efficiencies in the system" (taken from The Times Nov 9 1999 "time to lay off magistrates?")

The system as it stands today is regarded as efficient. As there are only about 600 full time judges as compared to 30,000 magistrates, it is clear that our legal system would not be unable to operate efficiently without them. I think if there was a better training system with more facts on the law it would not need to be replaced and they would not differ much from the way in which a judge works. The system would not work without them it would be unreasonable to get rid of them all together they would be worse off.