NCJ Number
129910
Journal
Law and Social Inquiry Volume: 15 Issue: 2 Dated: (1990) Pages: 191-221
Date Published
1990
Length
31 pages
Annotation
The severity of sentences imposed by professional and lay magistrates in London was compared and analyzed in terms of public opinion polls which suggest that citizens generally believe that courts give out excessively lenient sentences.
Abstract
The justifications for lay adjudicators are numerous, touching on concepts of legitimacy, public education, and safeguarding against potential tyranny. In England, Justices of the Peace or lay magistrates, impose sentences on the great majority of convicted offenders. While serious offenses are tried only in the crown court, all summary offenses and some hybrid offenses are tried in magistrates' court. This study predicted that lay magistrates would hand down more severe sentences than their professional colleagues, based on public opinion polls and the demography of lay magistrates. However, interviews using sentencing simulations, courtroom observations, and archival data indicate that lay magistrates are slightly more lenient than other magistrates in cases involving burglary and assault, particularly when the offender had been drunk before the crime. Legal training, level of court experience, panel decisionmaking, and professional position within the court system are some of the factors that might account for this phenomenon. 9 tables, 93 notes, and 2 appendixes (Author abstract modified)