While the use of lay persons, such as lay magistrates and juries, in the criminal justice system has several advantages, there are also some disadvantages to consider.
Limited legal knowledge: Lay persons in the criminal justice system, including lay magistrates and jury members, typically do not have formal legal training. They may have limited knowledge of complex legal principles, rules of evidence, or procedural nuances. This can potentially lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the law during trial proceedings.
Inconsistent decision-making: The decisions made by lay persons in the criminal justice system, particularly in the case of juries, can sometimes be inconsistent. Different juries may reach different verdicts in similar cases, leading to a lack of uniformity in outcomes. This inconsistency can undermine the perceived fairness and credibility of the justice system.
Vulnerability to bias: Lay persons may be susceptible to biases and prejudices, both conscious and unconscious, that could influence their decision-making. Despite instructions from the judge to base their decisions solely on the evidence presented in court, personal biases may unintentionally impact their judgments. This can result in unfair outcomes or potential miscarriages of justice.
Difficulty in understanding complex cases: Lay persons may struggle to comprehend complex legal issues or intricate factual evidence in certain cases. This is particularly relevant in trials involving technical or scientific evidence, which may require specialised knowledge or expertise. Difficulty in understanding complex cases can affect the quality of decision-making and potentially lead to erroneous outcomes.
Time and resource constraints: The involvement of lay persons in the criminal justice system can contribute to delays in trial proceedings. For example, jury trials require additional time for jury selection, instructions, and deliberations. Moreover, the need to find and train lay magistrates or jurors can be resource-intensive for the justice system.
Vulnerability to external influences: Lay persons involved in the criminal justice system, particularly jurors, may be susceptible to external influences that could compromise their impartiality. This includes media coverage, public opinion, or personal experiences that may unduly influence their decision-making process.
The inclusion of community representatives aims to enhance public participation, increase legitimacy, and promote a diversity of perspectives. However, awareness of these disadvantages is crucial to continually evaluate and improve the effectiveness and fairness of the criminal justice system. Measures such as judicial instructions, legal assistance, and ongoing training can help mitigate these disadvantages and enhance the role of lay persons in the criminal justice process.
Study with us to smash your AL/AS Law exam now:
