People who are selected as magistrates dont have to have any legal training,is that fair to defendants ?

Fin

A friend of a friend is a magistrate! she's had a fair bit of training. I would hate to think that she'd be adjudicating at my trial! She's a bleedin' fruit-cake!! She's a manic depressant and is far too right-wing to offer a fair trial to anyone!!

coragryph

It depends on the case and the situation.

First, almost all magistrates in almost all states are already attorneys. So, in the few states that allow otherwise, that's up to the state law to defines.

Second, in many arbitration and small claims matters, there aren't a lot of complicated legal issues. It's more an application of common sense. So, as long as the person is fairly intelligent, and rational, and has good critical thinking skills, that should be enough.

So, absent a specific example, where you can point to untrained magistrates making complex legal decisions, I don't think the problem ever really arises. And even if it does, the decision can always be appealed.

Raymo

But they are expected to be pillars of society with brains in their heads, able to listen and decide fairly on the case in front of them. They are ably assisted by legal clerks to do their job.

chaz13541

Jurors don't get any legal training and they essentially decide whether someone has commited the crime or not.

Euphojim

Magistrates are advised on all legal matters by the Clerk to the Court who is a lawyer. The system is fair.

LYN W

That is not true. A magistrate's bench consists of a chairperson who is legally trained and qualified and two lay magistrates who are volunteer members of the public. The three are advised by a clerk to the court who is also legally trained and qualified.

Jude

It is democracy in it's truest sense. I would love to be JP if I had the time. They don't get paid, they do it out of a sense of civic duty.

chris s

not fair to defendants, but look at this way, you can get to be a magistrate yourself, why not see if you can get the judges seat, n lay the law down yourself......

ragill_s1849

Yes, it's quite fair. They're more "normal" when it comes to handing out punishments. By that, I mean they're more like your average member of public that wants to see justice done and are more likely to give a punishment that fits the crime. I find that Judges are far too removed from it all and are far too lenient with what they dish out.

bob

no, obviously not. ooooeerrr you get some right funny opinions on 'ere.

Rob

no it isn't but it is supposed to give an indication of how the public view judicial matters .

Jabba_da_hut_07

No its not realy thinkin about it, mind you why mock it if you cant offer a better solution!

stinky_mutha

The clerk of the court advises magistrates on legal issues

molly wol

i dont think thats fair,

someonecanbme

the defendants commit crimes. why be fair to them>?

stratmanreturns

U S law is differently structured to UK law and the question is posed on a UK site.

1.There are no attorneys in UK.

2. The summary justice system is fair to defendants by means of the safeguards in place and range of sentencing powers .

Magistrates in UK are unpaid volunteers (though they may receive money for costs incurred) also known as lay Justices of the Peace, sitting on local benches (a colloquial and legal term for the local court), hearing lesser matters, and are provided with advice, especially on sentencing, by a legally qualified Court Legal Adviser. However, before they can hear cases they must undergo a period of training.
Their powers are limited.

toad

Fair? you are havin a laugh. They sentence people from a little book of guidelines and half the time they're too pissed to know what they are doing. People who want these type of positions shouldn't be allowed to have them. Ordinary people should take turns in these jobs and those that are only interested in the power shouldn't be allowed any.Same for politicians, police etc etc.

ANF

In England magistrates do have continuous training although the clerk to the court is there to advise them on legal matters.
They try, within guide lines, to try cases based on facts and seen through the eyes of the ordinary person. However there are some very strange decisions made but in general they do a good job as the first filtering of those that offend. They also in most cases see the wrong when people are charged without good reason.
If they believe that a crime is too serious for them to deal with the defendant is handled by a higher court.
It has worked for many many years and is the envy of many other countries as it keeps the cost of courts down.

Volley

It depends

simonavitch

They are not meant to and neither should they.
The Clerk of The Court advises on these matters.
You don't have to accept their judgement?

Jan

I don`t think it is, i have heard of some right arseholes, sitting up there passing sentence on others.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: