英语论文网

There are approximately 29,000 JP’s in England and Wales that usually sits in a ‘panel’ of three (sometimes two), working part time for a minimum of 26 and maximum of 35 half days per year, hearing cases. [8] They are described as “the backbone of the English criminal justice system,” and are responsible for considering the facts and evidence of a case and reaching a verdict. In instances where the offenders plead guilty or are found guilty they will decide the appropriate sentence or punishment. If offenders are found not guilty or if the punishment exceeds that which the Magistrates can give (indictable offences) the case is sent to the Crown Court. JP’s can also grant search warrants to the police and other authorities. The way JP’s deliver verdicts are similar to juries, in that, information is gathered; the magistrates confer outside and then return with their verdict. [9]

Advantages of using JP’s

When one thinks about an unqualified individual handling such an enormous responsibility, two things come to mind. Firstly, whether the creator of this process was thinking soundly and secondly, whether there are any beneficial aspects that outweigh the negative presumption that give these unqualified persons the right to ‘decide’ the future of individuals. I will expand on the latter.

Firstly, JP’s are important because they are ordinary people with a range of backgrounds who volunteer and are chosen to be involved in the activities of the state, providing decisions based on their consciences rather than strict law. They provide local knowledge that district judges may not possess. [10] With JP’s involvement, courts can be cognisant of activities within the communities and “the decisions of the courts can reflect local conditions and circumstances of the society,” bringing fairness and balance in the courts with their decisions. Citizens participate in the justice system by giving their general opinion of what the public is thinking. Decisions come from a ‘society’ rather than the judicial system and this can help sanction the idea of a ‘society free from state control’ [11]

Additionally, JP’s are seen as substitutes for District Judges, this allows judges to hear more serious cases and it reduces the cost on the system. It is cheaper to use JP’s because they are volunteers and are only paid expenses, they are not paid for their work “thus saving the tax payer money”, on the other hand, district judges have to be paid. [12]

Furthermore, JP’s act as a ‘filter’ by hearing the majority of summary offences and by having committal proceedings thus, limiting the amount of cases and ensuring that only the most serious cases go to the Crown Court. [13]

Fourthly, the majority of professional judges are of the male sex, JP’s brings gender balance coming from a wider cross section of society. There are 49% female JP’s compared to the less than 25% professional female district judges in the MC’s. [14]

Moreover, JP’s bring inconsistency when making decisions. However, this is beneficial, the ‘bench’ of three are more likely as a group to be less bias than a single judge and therefore, give a more ‘balanced view’ in a decision. [15] JP’s are more likely to penalize certain crimes than juries to convict and they tend to serve for a long period of time, thus, they get use to hearing similar charges and become familiar as to what excuses people use. [