The Role and Powers of Lay Magistrates in Criminal Cases
1a) Describe the role and powers of lay magistrates in criminal cases.
b) Consider whether lay magistrates are adequately trained for their
work.
1a) Describe the role and powers of lay magistrates in criminal cases.
For centuries the criminal justice system has allowed lay people;
people who are not legally qualified to administer justice to the
civilian population. Lay magistrates are otherwise known as Justices
of the Peace. Lay magistrates work is mainly connected to criminal
cases although they also deal with some civil matters, especially
family cases. Firstly, it is to be noted that lay magistrates only
perform their duties about once a fortnight. Despite being lay members
within the law, they try 97% of all criminal cases and deal with
preliminary hearings in the remaining 3% of criminal cases, these
involve Early Administrative Hearings, remand hearings, bail
applications, sentencing and transfer proceedings.
Lay magistrates also deal with commitals, magistrates can commit a
defendant charged with a triable either way offence for the sentence
to the Crown Court at the end of the case having heard the defendants
past record, they feel that their powers of punishment are
insufficent.
Lay magistrates have a fairly wide discretion as to the sentence they
select in each case although they are subject to certain restrictions.
Magistrates can only impose a maximum sentence of six months
imprisonment for one offence, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows
this to be increased to twelve months, and a maximum fine of £5000.
In theory lay magistrates are volunte...
... middle of paper ...
...rning law.
In view of the above I would say that Lay magistrates are adequately
trained for their work. Firstly they are not just people with no
common sense, they have to have a certain standard of good education.
They are given hands on training in understanding and orgainsation
they are allowed to develop new skills, they are trained how to do
observations of court sittings and they have visits to prisons and
probation offices where they can gain first hand experience. The
system does not jus allow them to practice without first going though
a probationary period. They are also mentioned thoughout this period
so if a person did not make the grade they would be disqualified
before training was completed. So referring back to the question
above, I think yes lay magistrates are adequately trained for their
work.
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
Assessors are legally qualified magistrates, with long experience in presiding over their own courts. When sitting in the superior court as assessors they are not mere advisors, but an integral part of the court. They have the same right as the judge to question the witnesses. Legal issues which are decided exclusively by the judge or panel of judges are evaluated prior to this decision by the assessors together with the judges, deliberating and voting with equal status. Decisions under this system seem much fairer and more reliable than under the jury system as it exists today.
... diploma, and must be a county resident for at least one year. Position of magistrate is gained either through appointment or partisan countywide election. State court judges are elected through nonpartisan countywide elections and must be a county resident. They must be at least 25 years of age, have 7 years experience practicing law, and be a state resident for a minimum of 3 years. Superior Court judges are required to have 7 years experience practicing law, be a circuit resident, be a state resident for a minimum of 3 years, and be no younger than 30. Superior court judges are elected in nonpartisan countywide elections.
Within the United States’ Criminal Justice System, problems pertaining to jurisdiction issues are quite common due several reasons. The United States v. Thomas J. L Smiley case and the United States v. Jared Lee Loughner case both had jurisdiction issues. Smiley and several other men obtained permission through a license from Mexico to search for treasure on an expedition; the treasure belonged to the steamer Golden Gate, which belonged to the Pacific Mail Steamship Company located within the United States. Ultimately, federal charges were brought upon him from the United States for violating a statue regarding plundering a sunken and/or abandoned ship. In contrast, Loughner had federal charges brought upon him by the United States due to his act a shooting, which resulted in the injuries and deaths of federal officials and employees. Furthermore, both cases involve jurisdiction issues involving the fairest of the trials and the location of the alleged crime; however, they both differ due to the circumstances and nature of the alleged crimes.
The judges that are a part of this group has many different roles, some of which are to issues warrants, making a determination of probable cause in evidence, denying or granting bail to offenders, overseeing trials, making rulings on different motions and even overseeing hearings. The prosecuting attorney is the one who will represent that state in c...
Judiciary.gov.uk. 2014. Judges, Tribunals and Magistrates | Introduction to the justice system | Traditions of the courts. [online] Available at: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/introduction-to-justice-system/court-traditions [Accessed: 2 Apr 2014].
The English legal system is complex and there are many ways in which it can be influenced, this essay will explore some of the different, more obvious ways the law can be changed and what this shows in relation to the quote above. First the essay will discuss the different ways the law can be created and changed and who enables and controls those changes, with my primary examples being the common law and legislation for the judicracy and Parliament respectively, then the essay will cover to what extent these powers enable the judicracy to change and create law in relation to Parliament and if it could be discribed as "opportunistic and piecemeal".
The criminal trial process is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society to a great extent. For the law to be effective, the criminal trial process must reflect what is accepted by society to be a breach of moral and ethical conduct and the extent to which protections are granted to the victims, the offenders and the community. For these reasons, the criminal trial process is effectively able to achieve this in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury system.
Within the Federal Government there are three main branches; “the Legislative, the Judicial, and Executive” (Phaedra Trethan, 2013). They have the same basic shape and the same basic roles were written in the Constitution in 1787.
The court system is composed of lawyers, judges, and juries. Their job is to ensure that everyone receives a fair trial, determine guilt or innocence, and apply sentences to guilty parties. The court system will contain one judge, and a jury of twelve citizens. The jury of the court will determine the guilt or innocence of the individual. The jury will also recommend a sentence for the crime the individual committed.
The ideal society we would all be considered equal, but reality often defies this idealism. When we think of police officers, we think of people working hard to keep us all safe, but this may not always be the case in today 's society. This is demonstrated in an opinion piece published in the Miami Herald, entitled “Need a ‘big, bad dude’? White criminals need not apply” by Leonard Pitts Jr. The article opens by discussing the shooting of African-American man Terence Crutcher, where the police officer who shot him stated it was due to him not obeying her orders and reaching inside his SUV for a weapon. However, the video of the shooting shows that this did not happen. The article also goes on to discuss other African-Americans shot in recent
The criminal justice system is composed of three parts – Police, Courts and Corrections – and all three work together to protect an individual’s rights and the rights of society to live without fear of being a victim of crime. According to merriam-webster.com, crime is defined as “an act that is forbidden or omission of a duty that is commanded by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” When all the three parts work together, it makes the criminal justice system function like a well tuned machine.
•To become a barrister one had to go to a certain number of dinners at the Inns of Court for 3 years. Then if you were approved of by the older lawyers you’d be “called to the bar” and then could become a barrister. There was no exam required.
The criminal justice system views any crime as a crime committed against the state and places much emphasis on retribution and paying back to the community, through time, fines or community work. Historically punishment has been a very public affair, which was once a key aspect of the punishment process, through the use of the stocks, dunking chair, pillory, and hangman’s noose, although in today’s society punishment has become a lot more private (Newburn, 2007). However it has been argued that although the debt against the state has been paid, the victim of the crime has been left with no legal input to seek adequate retribution from the offender, leaving the victim perhaps feeling unsatisfied with the criminal justice process.
The courts have the function of giving the public a chance to present themselves whether to prosecute or defend themselves if any disputes against them rise. It is known to everyone that a court is a place where disputes can be settled while using the right and proper procedures. In the Criminal court is the luxury of going through a tedious process of breaking a law. Once you have been arrested and have to go to court because of the arrest, you now have a criminal case appointed against you. The court is also the place where a just, fair and unbiased trial can be heard so that it would not cause any disadvantage to either of the party involved in the dispute. The parties are given a chance to represent themselves or to choose to have a legal representative, which is mostly preferred by many.