Introduction: The Purpose of Research A mixed or collaborative tribunal [2] is defned as a body of pro- fessional and lay judges that form a judicial chamber and adjudi- cate in various types of cases. Theoretically, lay judges participate on equal footing in delivering the fnal judgment. Examples of such tribunals are in particular found within the Romano-Germanic legal family. This system of participation includes Germany [3], Austria [4], Finland [5], Norway [6], Sweden [7], post-socialist countries in general [8]; Northern Ireland among the common law systems as well as Post-Apartheid South Africa [9]. The common denominator of *Corresponding author: Attila Badó, Department of law, University of Szeged, Hungary, Email: attila@badoat.hu Citation: Badó A, Feleky G, Lőrinczi J (2019) Empirical Research in Hunga- ry about Lay and Professional Judge Relations in Mixed Tribunals: Fair or Self-Distancing Aristocratism. Forensic Leg Investig Sci 5 : 028. Received: June 19, 2019; Accepted: July 29, 2019; Published: August 05, 2019 Copyright: © 2019 Badó A, et al. This is an open-access article distributed un- der the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unre- stricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. these legal systems is that professional judges, holding a law degree and actively pursuing their careers, are paired with lay judges, people without a law degree. However, these judges work together in decid- ing cases on merit with equal rights in questions of law and fact as well as in sanctioning in criminal proceedings. Lay judges in mixed tribunals may serve sensible purposes with- out actual and effective participation [10]; however, topical research shows that the legislator and the society electing expect more than from lay judges than a mere appearance. Practice also suggests that there is more to this than meets the eye and, apart from specifc cases, there is no judicial forum where a modicum of lay participation would not be detectable when looking at the system in general. The question remains: What is the level of participation and implications of lay judges within these mixed tribunals? English, Scottish or French lay judges, competent in minor civil and criminal cases, exercise unfet- tered discretion in theory, which, of course, cannot be fully applied in practice [11]. Discretion can also be considered complete for com- mon law juries where lay jurors are usually competent in fact-fnding and possibly sentence determination. In this case, researchers are less motivated by issues of dependence upon professional judges. They are far more motivated by external effects on this decision-making group such as attorneys, prosecutors, the media or the appeal of the accused [12]. The research studying 3576 cases by Kalven and Zeisel may be regarded as a classic example. The focal point of research was to examine the difference between the actual decision of the jury and a hypothetical verdict of a judge as the decision-making powers of judge and jury are separated from each other. The jury possesses the power of decision whilst the judge can only offer opinions [13]. The situation is different regarding mixed tribunals. Here, lay judg- es theoretically display the same degree of adjudicative competence as a professional judge during the decision-making process. However, they are faced with the fact that the professional judge acting as pres- ident in the judicial chamber assumes such dominance in competence that lay judges are prevented from participating as equals in the pro- ceedings. International research demonstrates that lay participation in Schöffen-type tribunals is generally negligible [14]. Nevertheless, the authors of this article consider that the degree and nature of this negligible participation is not insubstantial if the main objectives of applying the lay judge system lie in channeling the sense of social justice; casting lay assessors in a monitoring role or enhancing the de- liberative elements of democracy [15]. This empirical research is an attempt at determining the actual degree of participation of Hungarian lay judges in current systems compared to prior lay courts functioning in party-state settings [16]. It has been hypothetized that a lay assessor system of a political environment built on a market economy and a multi-party system could result in wider lay participation than a lay judge system consolidated in a totalitarian system. The lay judge sys- tem researched by Kulcsár in the 1960s has since lost its original po- litical function. This hypothesis seems plausible even if no substantial change in legislation concerning lay selection and functions has taken place since the 1960s. Thus, this work attempts to determine profes- sional judge attitude types regarding lay and professional judges in Badó A, et al., J Forensic Leg Investig Sci 2019, 5: 028 DOI: 10.24966/FLIS-733X/100028 HSOA Journal of Forensic, Legal & Investigative Sciences Research Article Attila Badó 1 *, Gábor Feleky 2 and János Lőrinczi 3 Department of law, University of Szeged, Hungary Empirical Research in Hungary about Lay and Professional Judge Relations in Mixed Tribunals: Fair or Self-Distancing Aristocratism Abstract This paper reports empirical research which addresses the im- pact and nature of lay participation in court proceedings [1]. This report is primarily based on assessments provided by lay and profes- sional judges. The status characteristics theory has been tested and supported by similar empirical research into mixed tribunal systems and has led to the assumption that this specifc problem-solving group is characterized by an internal hierarchical relationship that discourages increased lay participation, despite statutory provisions ensuring equal rights. However, it has also been assumed the lay judge system of a democratic society allows greater participation when compared to the 1960 research led by Kulcsár under the aus- pices of the single-party system period, even though no relevant changes in legislation have taken place. An attempt has been made to classify professional judges according to how they relate to lay judges in service that have no professional expertise based on this research revealing the lay and professional judges’ opinions.