I am seeking for an answer, can some one help and dicuss the advantages?

Question

I am seeking for an answer, can some one help and dicuss the advantages
and the disadvantages of using ordinary members of public as judges in the magistrates court

Answer 1

I think you would find this a question of ethics. Most people would "put themselves into the offenders shoes" and not be fair to everyone. Judges are supposed to swear and affirm that they do not do this when making decisions. Of course the advantage is a smaller/shorter court case list! I for one would be less likely to sue someone in the event that the judge was someone the defendant knew. I also think it would speed things up too. You would be able to have most court cases comleted in less time because you would have more judges to make the ruling. I see it working either way.

Answer 2

We have the same discussion at home in Norway at the moment. And a lot of people have a lot of opinions about the matter. Which is good. A country`s laws should always be up for adjustment. As times are changing, we simply have to look at things accordingly. But honestly, the law says that you shall be judged by your peers. And I feel you have the answer right there. The lawyers need to compare ordinary members of the public`s down to earth sort of way to look at things. And all matters deserve to be looked upon from all angels before decisions are made.

Answer 3

Just look at the way some solicitors ask questions, and think they are trained. They are only interested in winning which ever side they are on, (not justice.)
A sample question , have you stopped beating your wife answer yes or no.
As you can see if you say yes it means you were beating your wife, if you say no it means you are still beating her, when in fact you may never have hit your wife at all even in play.

Judges are supposed to be impartial, but may not be, however he can guide a jury if he thinks they are wrong, An honest jury will debate and way up the pros and cons, and come to as fair a decision as the evidence allows,. they are more likely to use common sense.

I would choose a jury.

Answer 4

Just look at some of the questions and answers written by, shall we say, the less 'experienced' users of this site - would you want them to sit in judgement upon you? In my view, too many 'ordinary ' members of the public find it impossible to be objective - a quality which is essential to decision making in an legal situation.

Answer 5

Magistrates are ordinary members of the public. They receive a little training. It's working.

Answer 6

They are not educated, experienced.