NCJ Number
187847
Date Published
2000
Length
149 pages
Annotation
This report investigates the balance of lay and stipendiary magistrates and the arguments supporting the balance.
Abstract
Lay magistrates sit part-time and are not paid for their services. Stipendiary magistrates sit full-time, are legally qualified members of the professional judiciary, and must be solicitors or barristers. Arguments for and against lay and stipendiary magistrates can be summarized as: participatory democracy and justice versus consistency and the rule of law; local justice versus national consistency; open versus case-hardened minds; symbolic legitimacy versus effectiveness and efficiency; and cost - high or low. The public considers that summary offenses, particularly if not contested, can be dealt with by a single magistrate; panels should make the more serious judicial decisions. Cost considerations suggest that this could be achieved (in the short term at least) only by continuing to make extensive use of lay magistrates. Criminal justice practitioners have greater confidence in professional judges. Furthermore, governmental pressure to make criminal courts more efficient, and to reduce the time cases take to complete, will also tend to favor the greater efficiency of stipendiary magistrates. However, this must be balanced against the potential increase in cost to the Prison Service. The report concludes that eliminating or greatly diminishing the role of lay magistrates would not be widely understood or supported. Table, figures, notes, appendixes, references