The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-12 00:00:00

APPEALS IN CRIMINAL CASES.

It is repr.sented that juries would estimate their
responsibility more lightly if they delib!rited with
the knowLidge that their decision was not neces-
sar ly conclusive. We may ask, in reply, whether
this is found to be the case in cit it actions—whether
there is the least reason to suppose that jurors in-
dulge themselves in greaer lax ty 61 dealing with
questions of property because they know that the
party against whom they decide may carry his case
to the highest court in the laud ? In one class of
cases it is probably true that juries would, under
the proposed system, boar their responsibilities with
greater e se to themselves, and by their so doing the •
interests of substantial jus•ice would be greatly ad-
yawed. It notoriously happens not infrequently
in trials for murder that twelve jurymen will
acquit a prisoner of whose guilt they cannot
bs supposed to entertain any reasonable doubt,
because they shrink f.ona sending a fellow-creature
to death while they fancy there is a possibility of
error. From such compunctious weakness they are
clearly much more lik-ly to be free if they can be
assured that any mistaken deductions which they
may draw from the evidence are liable to be revised
by another tribunal, which will also have the power
of taking into consideraion any facts which may
have been unknown at the time when they were
called upon to pronounce their verdict. In
this way the effect of a recognised mode of
appeal would, probably, have been to prevent
the escape of some of the unconvicted mur-
derers who, there can be no doubt, are now walk- .
ing abroad in society as the result of certain abor-
tive proceedings which have attracted a large share
of attention during the last two or three years. By
working in a somewhat analogous way on the mind
of the Minister intrusted with this department, the
system would also save us occasionally from wit-
nessing the commutation of a capital st ntence in
case's where public opinion does not go with
the leniency of the Crown. As the law stands,
however heinous may be the crime asc ibed to
any convict on whose behalf an effort is made,
the Secretary of State, if some slight misgiv-
ing as to the question of actual guilt be awa-
kened in his breast, has no resource but to reduce
the punishment. We need only glance at the
cases of Clestina Somers and of the Irish artist
who murdered his wife on the see-coast near
Dublin to illustrate the practical absurdities in
,which we are involved by the unjust test to which
we expose the natural weakness of the administra-
tors of the law. Were it possible for every conviction
to be exhaustively investigated before it came into
the hands of the Crown we should have fewer instan-
ces of persons confined in Her Majesty's gaols who
unquestionably ought to be hanged if they are
guilty ; while, if they are innocent, they should as
certainly be free. The establishment of a regular
method of appeal on matters of fact would thus tend
to “oduce consistency in the administration of the
law as well as to impart additional certainty
to conviction. It is fully in accordance with
the humane spirit in which our criminal code
has been reformed during the last 30 years. By
common consent the consideration of the subject
has been postponed until next session, but the
utility and importance of the desired change may
be considered to be established.—Manchtste
Guardian.