Arkansas true Democrat., 1858-12-01
Trial by Jury.

Lord Chief Justice Campbell of England having proposed the adoption of the two-thrds majority rule by juries in arriving at decisions, the proposition has been debated and finds ad- vocates on this side of the Atlantic Some of the legislatures of the different states have had the question before them, and in these days of change and reform it may be debated u Ar kansas. We see that several of our cotempo- raries have discussed the subject and as it is & question of Importance we briefly and dffident- ly submit our views thereon. We hope never to see the rule adopted by jures in this country but the principle of unanimty persisted in. If 1t is made to depend on majority of any kind the jury room will become a mere debating clubs and the noisy overbearing members will pride themselves upon their influence therein. Nor will what are called chung iuries'' be less ened, for when men debate argue they sel. dom or ever make or become converts. Mir. Ctlhoun's views this subject express this idea so clearly and forcby that we copy and call attention to them. Speaking of juries the great Carolnan said
 "In these twelve individuals, selected with out discrimination, must unanimously concur in opnon-under the obligations of an oath to find a true verdict, according to law and evil dence; and this, toO not unfrequentlv under such great difficulty and doubt, that the abless and most experienced judges and advocates differ in opinion, after careful examinaton.-- And yet, as impractcable as this mode of trial would seem to superficial observer, it is found in practice, not only to succeed, but to be the safest, the wiSest and the best that human in- genuity has ever devised When closely in- vestigated, the cause will be found in the ne- ceSsity, under which the jury is placed, to agree unanimously, in order to find a verdict
 This necessity acts as the predisposing cause of concurrence In some common opinion and with such efficacy that jury rarely fails to find averdict.
 Under its potent influence, the jurors take their seats with the disposition to give fair and impartial hearing to the arguments on both sides, meet together in the jury room--not as disputants but calmly to hear the opinions of each other, and to compare and weigh the arguments on which they are founded: and finally to adopt that which, on the whole, is thought to be true. Under the influence of this disposition to harmonze, one after another falls into the same opinion, until unanimity is ob-
 
 also, its peculiar excellence. Nothing. indeed, can be more favorable to the success of truth and justice. than this predispoyng influence caused by the necessity of being unanimous.- It is so much so, to compensate for the de- feet of legal knowledge, and a high degree of intelligence on the part of those who usually compose jurleS. If the necessity of unanmity were dispensed with, and the finding of jury made to depend on bare majority jury trial, instead of being one of the greatest improve ments in the judicial department of govern ment, would be one of the greatest evils that could be inflicted on the community It would be- in such case the conduit through which all the factious feelings of the day would en- ter and con'amnate justice at its source."- DtsQ. on G00e'nmeat, Uol. l.
 Aside from all this we very much donbt if any change in the common law form of trial can legally be made. The constitution Of he Uhned States says in one place, that thl trial of all crimes shall be by jury excepting i'm, peachment, Again, it declares that criminals shall enjoy the right to speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. The constitution of Arkansas has this section" The trial by jury shall remain nviolate," and in another section refers to trial by an impartial jury. By the terms "jury" and "jury trials here used were meant md intended the jury system then ex- iStins, requ;rng the verdict of twelve unani- nous men, It may be true that if only ma jorty or majority of two-thirds was required, ' itwouId still be a jury aud 50 come within the letter of the constitution. But if the system be m'dGed and essentially changed will it not be violation of the spirit of the instrument - Holding these views we do not believe that such a change can be made and if it could VIC would oppose it to the last as destructive of the ends of justice and of the best interests of so- l ciety.