Summary

Introduction

This  research  originates  from  a  motion  adopted  by  the  House  of  Representatives  in  2022,  which
requested to provide an overview of the different forms of lay justice that are currently being applied
in Western European countries. The underlying idea is that introducing a form of lay justice would lead
to improved public confidence and trust in the judiciary in the Netherlands. The Netherlands is one of
the  few  countries  in  Europe  that  does  not  have  any  form  of  lay  representation  in  criminal  justice
(except for  military  tribunals). Research into the  possible  introduction of lay  representation  in the
Dutch criminal justice system was already carried out in 2006 in response to an earlier, similar motion.
The new motion provides an opportunity to conduct an update of the earlier research study into the
various forms of lay justice in Western Europe, with the aim of facilitating a debate on the possible
introduction of a form of lay justice in the Dutch (criminal) legal system.

In this study, lay justice is understood as 'the participation in the justice system of citizens who have
no legal training or any other specialist qualification'. The three forms of lay justice that are discussed
here are jury trials, the lay magistrate and mixed panels. In jury trials, a group of lay people is randomly
selected (on the basis of electoral lists) from the community to participate in one criminal case, which
is presided over by a professional judge. The jury has independent decision-making power with regard
to (at least) the question of guilt, without the involvement of professional judges. The lay magistrate
decides on both guilt and punishment without a professional judge, alone or together with other lay
magistrates. The mixed panel is a form of lay justice in which lay judges are appointed to participate
in multiple trials over a period of time, adjudicating together with professional judges and co-deciding
on both guilt and punishment.

Previous Dutch research shows that trust in the judiciary in the Netherlands in general is relatively
high. Among people who have little trust in the judiciary, this is partly due to low trust in institutions
in  general  and  dissatisfaction  with  the  functioning  of  the  judiciary  or  the  legal  system  in  general.
Moreover, research shows that it is not self-evident that lay justice contributes to trust in the judiciary.
Furthermore,  the  existing  research  does  not  yet  provide  in-depth  knowledge  about  what  Dutch
citizens think of various forms of lay justice, what advantages and disadvantages they attribute to it,
and what these different forms can mean for their trust in the judiciary.

In  addition  to  trust  in  the  judiciary,  this  study  examines  the  relationship  between  lay  justice  and
democratic  participation,  because  lay  justice  is  seen  as  a  form  of  democratic  participation  in  the
judiciary.  Democratic  participation  in  the  context  of  lay  justice  can  be  seen  as  meeting  three
conditions: participation, deliberation and representativeness. Participation means, firstly, the extent
to which citizens have the opportunity to participate in a substantial part of criminal cases or in an
important category of criminal cases. Secondly, it concerns the possibility of playing a role in decisions
on guilt and punishment, of gaining access to the underlying information and of actively participating
in  hearings.  Deliberation  is  mainly  about  promoting  the  quality  of  deliberation,  in  which  each
participant finds him- or herself in an equal position, and in which different perspectives, both those
of professionals and laypeople, are discussed. Lay judges must therefore be able to retain their unique
perspective as 'lay people' (as opposed to professionals) as much as possible. In addition, deliberation
is also about the extent to which the existence of lay justice contributes to a well-informed societal
debate  about  the  judiciary.  Representativeness  means  the  extent  to  which  the  entire  body  of  lay
judges or juries reflects the composition of the society in the given country.

The central research question is:

What is known about the relationship between the different forms of lay justice in criminal cases in
Western European countries (and beyond) and (a) trust in the criminal justice system; (b) democratic
participation and (c) other possible arguments for and against lay justice?

The sub-questions are:

1. What arguments for and against lay justice are put forward in the legal and legal
theoretical literature? (answered in chapter 3)

2.  Which different forms of lay justice are applied in criminal cases in Western Europe,
and  how  do  these  different  forms  relate  to  the  three  conditions  of  democratic
participation, namely participation, deliberation and representativeness, according to the
relevant laws and regulations, available statistical data and the legal literature? (answered
in chapter 4)

3. What is known from the empirical literature about the relationship between: a) public
trust in the administration of (criminal) justice and (different forms of) lay justice; and b)
democratic participation and (various forms of) lay justice? (answered in chapter 5)

4. What experiences have recently been gained with different forms of lay justice in
criminal cases in three selected Western European countries? What arguments for and
against lay justice have been put forward in these countries in the light of (promoting)
democratic participation and trust in lay justice and/or the judiciary? (answered in chapter
5)

5. How do Dutch citizens view the introduction of various forms of lay justice in criminal
cases, and how do they view the relationship between these forms of lay justice and trust
in the judiciary? (answered in chapter 7)

Methods

Various research methods were used for the study, namely:

•

Document and literature review: legal, legal theoretical and empirical literature was

examined. Depending on the research question, the review included national, European or
international sources. Also, laws and regulations were studied, and relevant databases were
consulted.
•

In-depth study in three countries: the experiences with three different forms of lay

justice in criminal cases in Belgium, England and Sweden were investigated through an in-
depth literature study, supplemented with semi-structured interviews with (lay) judges and
former jurors (two to five interviews per country).
•

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seventeen Dutch citizens whose

trust in the judiciary varies from very low to very high. Participants were asked about their
trust in the judiciary, their opinion on different forms of lay justice, and what advantages and
disadvantages they attribute to it.

Arguments for and against lay justice

What arguments for and against lay justice are put forward in the legal and legal theoretical literature?

Important  arguments  in  favour  of  lay  justice  are  that  it  promotes  of  democratic  participation,
increases  accessibility of the  law  for citizens,  and  limits  government power. Historically, there  has
been a strong fear of oppression by corrupt judges, and lay justice can be understood as a guarantee
against abuse of power by the government.

In addition, certain arguments are used both in favour and against lay justice: namely, considerations
relating to the legal tradition, the quality of judicial decisions, the impartiality of judges and the costs
associated with lay justice. A long tradition of lay justice could, for example, ensure that lay justice has
sufficient support among both lawyers and the wider public. On the other hand, the absence of such
a tradition may provoke resistance to the introduction of (a form of) lay justice, both among lawyers
and citizens. The involvement of lay people can potentially improve the quality of judicial decisions.
That is because a diverse group of lay people can provide valuable insights into the social context of a
case and show more empathy for those involved (both for the suspect, and for the victim and any
surviving relatives). At the same time, there are concerns that lay people are less suited for judging
than professional judges. It is argued that lay persons do not have the necessary expertise and are
more  easily  influenced  by  emotions,  or  that  they  may  be  inclined  to  punish  more  severely  than
professional judges. As for the costs, opponents of lay justice emphasize that a system with a jury or
mixed panels is more expensive than professional justice. They fear that the efficiency of the current
Dutch criminal procedure, which is mainly written in nature, will be jeopardized if not all participants
are professional lawyers. Proponents, on the other hand, stress that a panel with several lay judges or
a mixed panel with one professional judge and two lay judges is cheaper than a multi-judge panel with
three professional judges.

Forms of lay justice in Western Europe

What are the different forms of lay justice in criminal cases that are applied in Western Europe, and
how do these different forms relate to the three aspects of democratic participation?

An exploratory study of 18 European countries (and a total of 20  jurisdictions with their own legal
system within these countries) shows that the three different forms of lay justice – the jury, the lay
magistrate and the mixed panel – are very differently organised. The differences lie in the number of
lay  judges  (in  absolute  terms  and  in  relation  to  the  number  of  professional  judges),  the  role  and
responsibilities of lay judges, and the procedures for selection and decision-making. Each of the three
forms of lay justice has inherent advantages and risks. In terms of participation, the advantage of lay
magistrates and jury trials over mixed panels is that the lay people have the formal authority to decide
completely  independently  without  the  professional  judge(s).  Ensuring  (active)  participation  of  lay
people during the hearings is a challenge in all three models. As far as deliberation is concerned (the
extent to which lay people exert influence on the decisions taken), the lay magistrate has the most
advantage. The risk of laypeople being influenced by legal professionals seems to be greatest in mixed
panels, but it is also present to some extent in jury trials. In some countries, legal safeguards have
been introduced to give lay judges in mixed panels the same rights and powers as professional judges,
but  it  is  questionable  whether  these  safeguards  are  effective  in  practice.  The  chance  of
professionalization of lay judges is greatest with the lay magistrate, and smallest with jury trials. In
terms  of  representation,  jury  trials  offer  the  greatest  opportunity  to  involve  as  many  citizens  as
possible in lay justice, provided that the jury handles a relatively large number of cases. In Belgium,
for  example,  only  a  limited  number  of  jury  trials  take  place  each  year.  However,  the
representativeness of jurors and lay judges remains a major challenge in all three forms of lay justice.
Some  countries  have  introduced  explicit  safeguards  to  increase  representativeness,  but  the
effectiveness of these safeguards is unclear in practice. In answering this question, different forms of
lay justice were compared with each other, but no comparison was made with a system consisting

exclusively of professional judges. Therefore, the question of, for instance, whether lay justice is more
or less representative than a system with only professional judges has not been addressed.

Relationship between lay justice, trust and democratic participation in empirical research

What  is  known  from  the  empirical  literature  on  the  relationship  between:  a)  public  trust  in  the
administration of (criminal) justice and (various forms of) lay justice; and b) democratic participation
and (various forms of) lay justice?

The vast majority of empirical studies concern jury trials and originate from the United States. With
regard  to  trust  in  the  judiciary,  it  first  of  all  –  as  expected  –  appears  to  be  difficult  to  properly
investigate  the  relationship  with  a  particular  form  of  lay  justice.  In  general,  it  seems  that  citizens
appreciate  the  system  they  are  familiar  with,  but  that  the  less  trust  they  have  in  the  system  of
professional justice, the more they support lay justice. The clearest relationship between lay justice
and trust in justice exists for those who have participated in a jury. They often have more confidence
in the judiciary after their participation in the jury. This is because they usually look back positively on
their  experience  and,  for  example,  are satisfied  with  the  mutual  treatment  and  collaboration,  the
deliberation  process,  and  with  the  decision.  However,  their  trust  in  the  judiciary  prior  to  their
appearance as jurors also appears to play a role. Moreover, this means that jury participation can also
lead to decreased trust in the judiciary, namely if citizens judge their experience as a juror negatively.

Various  aspects  of  democratic  participation  are  reflected  in  the  empirical  research  studied.  For
example, the representativeness of the participating citizens is a point of attention in all forms of lay
justice. (Self-)selection effects appear to occur in each phase  of selection, as a result of which, for
example,  people  from  minority  groups  are  less  likely  to  participate  in  a  jury  panel.  As  far  as
deliberation in mixed panels is concerned, there are considerable differences in the extent to which
citizens actively participate in decision-making. However, in joint deliberation, non-legal knowledge
and argumentation also appear to be useful for decision-making; a point on which lay judges are not
inferior  to  professional  judges.  However,  lay  judges  do  learn  over  time  which  arguments  are
considered legally relevant, meaning that they gradually lose their quality of laypersons.

Two  other  aspects  of  democratic  participation  have  also  been  addressed  in  previous  empirical
research, namely the willingness of citizens to participate in lay justice and the significance of that
participation for active citizenship. Among other things, citizens appear to be less willing to participate
the more uncertain they are about their own knowledge and skills. The willingness to participate, on
the other hand, seems to be greater among those who tend to support jury trials, or those who tend
to be dissatisfied with professional judges. Finally, as far as the relationship between lay justice and
active citizenship is concerned, participation in the jury seems to lead people to vote more often in
elections.

Experiences in Belgium, Sweden and England and Wales

What experiences have been gained recently with different forms of lay justice in  criminal cases in
three  selected Western European countries: the jury (Belgium), mixed panels  (Sweden) and the lay
magistrate (England and Wales)? What arguments for and against lay justice have been put forward
in these countries, and what are the relative advantages and disadvantages of these forms in the light
of (promoting) democratic participation and trust in lay justice and/or the judiciary?

In all three countries, lay justice is seen as an integral part of the national legal culture and democratic
tradition.  Nevertheless,  there  have  also  been  recent  discussions  in  all  three  countries  about  the
advantages and disadvantages of (the existing forms of) lay justice. The general tendency in the three

countries over the past century has been to limit the scope and/or the role and influence of lay judges
within the criminal justice system.

Some arguments for and against lay justice from the three countries are similar to the arguments put
forward in the literature on legal theory. Promoting democratic participation and trust in the judiciary
by reducing the supposed 'gap' between citizens and the judiciary was mentioned in all three countries
studied. In Sweden, the emphasis was on bringing non-legal expertise to the professional judiciary and
informing the public about the functioning of the criminal justice system. In England and Wales, on
the  other  hand,  the  focus  was  more  on  magistrates  '  involvement  in  the  community  and  the
promotion of 'local justice'. In Belgium, the argument of the particular quality and meticulousness of
the procedure and decision-making in cases tried by jury came to the fore.

The cost argument seemed to be more prominent in Belgium (as an argument against lay justice) and
England and Wales (as an argument for lay justice), but also played a role in the background in Sweden.
As an argument against lay justice, in both Belgium and Sweden, the lack of real (substantive) input to
the process or outcomes by lay people was mentioned, and in England and Wales, the inadequate
quality of procedures  and decision-making in magistrate  courts.  A prominent argument in Sweden
concerned  the  possible  political  influence  on  the  judiciary,  because  lay  judges  are  appointed  by
political parties.

Many of the arguments mentioned above contain assumptions that are not or insufficiently supported
by  empirical  evidence.  As  regards  the  three  aspects  of  democratic  participation,  the  level  of
participation  in  terms  of  the  share  of  the  total  population  participating  is  rather  low  in  all  three
countries. Nevertheless, this concerns a significant proportion of, or an important category of criminal
cases. The  proportion  of all criminal cases  that are handled with the  participation of lay  people  is
highest in England and Wales in the magistrates model and is very low in the jury model in Belgium
(although these are very important cases, such as murders or manslaughters). As far as deliberation is
concerned, the input of lay people is formally well guaranteed in all three countries studied. De facto,
the input of lay people is least prominent in Sweden and most prominent in England (although lay
people can also be influenced there by, for example, legal advisers). The input of lay people is generally
assessed differently by professional judges than by lay people themselves. Laymen believe that they
have  more  input  than  is  acknowledged  by  professional  judges.  The  representativeness  of  persons
participating  in  lay  justice  is  a  problematic  aspect  in  each  of  the  three  countries  examined.
Theoretically, a jury  model ensures greater  representativeness  than a mixed panel model or a lay
magistrate system, because jurors are randomly selected from the community. Of the three examined
jurisdictions, England and Wales makes the greatest effort to ensure genuine representativeness of
lay judges.

Dutch citizens on lay justice and trust

How do Dutch citizens view the introduction of various forms of lay justice and how do they view the
relationship between these forms of lay justice and trust in the judiciary?

The qualitative research consisting of interviews with seventeen Dutch citizens, whose trust in the
judiciary varied from very high to very low, showed that several respondents associated professional
justice with expertise and objectivity. This association was accompanied by reluctance to support the
idea  of  lay  justice.  According  to  these  respondents,  citizens  would  be  too  impressionable  and
emotional, as a result of which feelings of revenge and prejudice would play an undesirable role in
decision-making. Other disadvantages they mention are the possible extra costs and longer duration
of cases (by selecting, funding and informing laymen), the possible higher penalties (if the respondent
is not in favor of higher sanctions), a (too) great influence of dominant citizens during deliberations,

the  risk  of  external influence  on laymen,  and  security risks  for  participating  citizens. In addition to
disadvantages, advantages  of lay  justice  were  also mentioned, such as  that  it would  allow  for the
involvement of insights of different groups of citizens; promote greater awareness of the complexity
of judicial decisions and acceptance of the latter by citizens; promote greater understanding for the
points of view of other citizens; would result in  judgments that are easier to understand; and would
lead to lower costs (a layman is cheaper than a professional judge) and the elimination of backlogs by
having laymen handle simple cases.

Of the  three  forms in which citizens (co-)decide, the  mixed panel  can count on the  most support,
because of the involvement of a professional judge. Nevertheless, some respondents observed that
also in this form that professional judges should retain the deciding vote. In general, support for lay
justice seemed to be greater among people who had less trust in the (professional) judiciary, but there
were also exceptions to this.

The interviewees had varying opinions about the possible influence of the introduction of lay justice
on their trust in the judiciary. Some respondents thought that the existence of a form of lay justice
would increase their trust. Others thought that it would reduce their trust, and others simply found it
difficult to assess. In a general sense, the interviewees considered it possible that a form of lay justice
could  contribute  to  trust  in  the  judiciary,  because  people  would  see  that  citizens  like  them  are
represented and that their insights are taken into account in the decision-making process. It was also
important  for  the  respondents  that  the  group  of  participating  citizens  would  be  representative  of
society, for two reasons: firstly, because it is a guarantee against unilateral decisions and secondly
because it gives everyone an equal opportunity to participate. That could possibly contribute to trust
in the judiciary, because everyone feels represented.

The advantages and disadvantages of lay justice mentioned by citizens are broadly in line with the
arguments from previous Dutch research. A new argument is the safety of the participating citizens.
This point is in line  with the  increased attention to the  safety of professional judges, lawyers and
prosecutors  in  a  broader  sense.  Moreover,  in  the  context  of  lay  justice,  respondents  used
considerations  concerning  security  in  different  ways:  in  relation  to  the  willingness  to  participate
(presumably lower in the event of a security risk), objectivity (lay people may be threatened to enforce
a certain decision) and the cost of proceedings (it is more expensive if all participating lay people also
have to be protected).

Final remarks

There are several paths along which lay justice could influence citizens' trust in the judiciary: (a) a
possible  increase  in trust due to changes  in outcomes of criminal cases  in line  with the wishes of
citizens; (b) a possible increase in trust because citizens see that their insights are taken into account
(change in the process); and (c) an increase in confidence among those who participate as laymen and
look back positively on their participation. The latter is supported in international empirical research
among jury members.

This study has examined possible advantages and disadvantages associated with different forms of lay
justice. In the Dutch context, there appears to be a lot of support for the current professional justice
system, and therefore there is probably little support for lay justice, and little confidence in the fact
that lay people can take objective decisions. In addition, trust in the judiciary may actually decrease
among those who now have a lot of confidence in professional justice. Finally, the necessary changes
in the system and attitudes within the judiciary pose particular challenges with regard to the possible
introduction  of  a  form  of  lay  justice  in  the  Netherlands.  However,  there  are  also  fundamental

arguments in favor introducing lay justice, for example to strengthen the democratic nature of the
judiciary. The final weighing of all the pros and cons remains a political choice.

The advantages and disadvantages discussed this report are schematically presented in the four tables
below: one table concerns all forms of lay justice general, followed by three tables for the different
forms of lay justice covered in this study: the jury, mixed panels and the lay magistrate. In the tables
we cover the advantages and disadvantages with regard to the trust in the judiciary; the three distinct
elements of democratic participation; and other advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages and disadvantages of lay justice in general

Advantages

Disadvantages

Tru

• Possible increase in trust due to changes

in outcomes in line with the wishes of
citizens.

• Possible increase in trust because citizens

see that their insights are taken into
account (change in the process).

• Possible increase in trust among those

who participate as laymen and look back
positively on their participation.

• Much support for current professional

justice system; little support for lay
justice and little confidence in the fact
that participating lay people would take
objective decisions.

• Possible decrease in trust among those

who now have a lot of confidence in
professional justice.

art

• Citizen participation in the judiciary is

increasing because a certain proportion
of citizens participate in (part of) criminal
cases and are given a (co-)decisive role in
them.

• Participating citizens are better informed

about the (functioning of the) criminal
justice system.

• The scope or reach of lay justice within

the criminal justice system may remain
limited due to certain considerations
that play an important role in the
judiciary today, in particular the
increasing complexity of criminal cases,
efficiency and cost savings.

• Providing information to lay people in a

way that is accessible to them and
allowing them to participate in
decision-making requires a lot of effort
from the professionals involved, and
possibly far-reaching reforms in the
criminal process.

lib

era

• The quality of deliberation in criminal

cases may improve because professionals
are confronted with the perspectives and
insights brought in by lay people.

• The existence of the institution of lay

justice may contribute to the quality of
the public debate about the judiciary,
which is partly conducted through the
media.

• Equal deliberation may be limited by de

facto unequal (information) positions of
professionals and lay judges;
professionals are likely to have a lot of
influence on the decision-making of lay
people.

• Strict frameworks set by the legal

system, with which court decisions
must comply, limit the scope for debate
in deliberations with the participation
of laymen and professionals.

• Media coverage of the lay justice

system can be one-sided and
superficial, with an emphasis on
creating sensation.

• Lay judges may be reluctant to reach a

wide audience or encounter barriers
such as lack of time or administrative
support.

• Representativeness and diversity within

the judiciary increases when lay judges
come from all layers of society.

• Selection conditions to participate in lay

justice can have exclusionary effects for
minority groups.

• Self-selection may take place, as a

result of which people from certain
layers are less represented (for
example, younger people or people
with lower confidence in the judiciary).

• Recruiting lay judges from less

represented groups takes a lot of effort.

• Involving lay people can contribute to

greater openness and accessibility of the
judiciary.

• The introduction of lay justice may have

little support among legal professionals
in those legal systems where it does not
exist.

Advantages and disadvantages of jury trials

Advantages

Disadvantages

Tru

• Because a relatively large number of

people participates in a lay jury panel,
this is the best way to show that
everyone's insights can be taken into
account and to possibly achieve more
trust through democratic participation.

• Possible decrease in trust because

people have the impression that jurors
are easily influenced and cannot judge
objectively.

art

• Possibility to involve a large part of the

population in the administration of
justice (provided that the type/number
of cases handled by a jury is not limited
too much).

• Jury members generally rate their

experiences with participation in the
jury positively.

• Possibility to actively involve lay people

during the trial and deliberation.

• Partly due to high costs, the share of

cases heard by juries remains fairly
limited in many countries.

• There is a risk that the jury's power to

decide independently (without judges or
other professionals) will be increasingly
limited due to concerns about 'incorrect'
or 'unfair' acquittals.

era

• Jurors make most of the decisions in a

case together, especially about guilt.

• Potentially better quality of the

deliberation due to a large number of
participants.

• The risk of influence by professional

lawyers (including judges) may be
reduced by the secret deliberation and
vote.

• Potentially great familiarity of society

with jury trials.

• Potentially more media attention for the

judiciary.

• The jury members retain the quality of

layman through their one-time
participation.

• The actual quality of the deliberation

depends on various factors that can be
difficult to ensure, such as
representativeness in the jury panel.

• Some risk of influence by professional

lawyers (and possibly also the media)
remains.

• Risk of poor quality of media coverage

with an emphasis on sensational aspects
of jury cases.

• The jury duty and random selection

promote representativeness.

• In many countries there are legal

safeguards to ensure
representativeness.

• The degree of representativeness often

decreases significantly during the
selection of panels of potential jurors for
concrete cases.

• The possibility for the parties to exclude

people from jury participation can
further limit representativeness.

• The proceedings are public and

accessible to the wider public; the public
is likely to have a lot of interest in jury
cases.

• The support for the introduction or the

continued existence of the jury can be
(too) small, especially among lawyers.

• High costs per case compared to the

fully professional judiciary and other
forms of lay justice.

Advantages and disadvantages of mixed panels

Advantages

Disadvantages

Tru

• Perceived by Dutch citizens as less of a

drastic change in the system, than
introducing jury trials or lay magistrates.

• Possible decrease in trust because

people have the impression that lay
judges are easily influenced and cannot
judge objectively, although the presence
of the professional judge offers some
counterbalance in the perception of
citizens.

art

• Possibility to let lay people participate in

a relatively high proportion of criminal
cases.

• Lay judges are generally positive about

their experiences of participating in
mixed panels.

• Lay judges gain a great deal of insight

into the functioning of the judiciary and
the reasoning behind judicial decisions.

• The share of the population that can

participate in the judiciary remains
limited.

• The (active) participation of lay judges

during the hearing may remain limited.

• Lay judges have no power to make

decisions completely independently
(without professional judges).

• There is a risk that the number of

applications from citizens will be
insufficient, partly because the position
is usually unpaid.

• Potentially better quality of

deliberations due to a (relatively) large
number of participants and a mix of
both laymen and professionals.

• Possibility to introduce legal safeguards

to give lay judges and professional
judges an equal voice (and other
safeguards to protect the role of lay
judges in deliberations compared to
professional judges).

• Risk of de facto influence by professional

judges despite the legal guarantees
ensuring formally equal roles.

• Risk of 'professionalisation' of lay judges

(who then lose the quality of 'layman')
compared to jurors (but to a lesser
extent than lay magistrates).

• Lay judges can be reluctant to maintain

contacts with the wider public.

• Possibly limited media attention for

and/or of one-sided or negative media
coverage of (the functioning of) lay
judges.

• Possibility to promote

representativeness by introducing
certain selection mechanisms.

• There are legal safeguards to ensure

representativeness in some countries.

• The degree of representativeness

remains limited by the voluntary (and
often unpaid) nature of the position of
lay judge.

• Risk that certain groups or people will be

excluded due to the selection conditions
(and the fact that the position is unpaid)
and/or self-selection.

• Risk of political influence as lay judges

can be nominated by political parties in
certain countries.

• The criminal justice process may

become more transparent and
accessible to citizens.

• Comparatively lower costs compared to

panels with professional judges.

• Lay judges may not receive sufficient

administrative support and/or cost
compensation from the government,
because the position is considered
'voluntary work'.

Advantages and disadvantages of lay magistrates

Advantages

Disadvantages

Tru

• Possible decrease in trust because people

have the impression that lay magistrates
are easily influenced and cannot judge
objectively, and moreover there is no
professional judge involved.

art

• Possibility to let a very high proportion

of criminal cases be decided by lay
people.

• Lay magistrates are generally positive

about their experiences in the judiciary.

• In continental law legal systems, lay

magistrates are likely to be able to
actively participate in the hearing.

• Lay magistrates are authorised to make

decisions completely independently
(without professional judges).

• The share of the population that can

participate in the administration of justice
remains very limited.

• In common law legal systems, lay

magistrates can be more passive during
the hearing.

• There is a risk that the number of

applications from citizens will be
insufficient, partly because the position is
unpaid.

lib

• Provided that several lay judges decide

together, collective decision-making
ensures a better quality of deliberation.

• Relatively little risk of influencing of

decision-making by professional judges
and the media.

• (According to some authors) potentially

lower quality of deliberation and
decision-making due to the lack of
professional judges.

• A certain degree of risk of being

influenced by legal professionals other
than judges remains.

• A higher chance of 'professionalisation' of

lay magistrates compared to other forms
of lay justice.

• Lay magistrates can be reluctant to

maintain contact with the wider public.

• Possibly (very) limited media attention for

and/or of one-sided or negative media
coverage of lay magistrates.

• Possibility to influence

representativeness by introducing
certain selection mechanisms.

• In many countries there are legal

guarantees to ensure
representativeness.

• The degree of representativeness remains

limited by the voluntary (and often
unpaid) nature of the position of lay
magistrate.

• Risk that certain groups or people will be

excluded due to the selection conditions
(and the fact that the position is unpaid)
and/or self-selection.