Litchfield enquirer., 1858-11-04
REFORM OF TnE JURY SYSTEM.

One of the most distinguished and eXperi- enced lawyers in ,,gland, aud the Chief Jus tice of it's highest Court Lord Campbell | has announced lis intention of bringing in, at 3 the next session of the British Parliament, q B bill dispensing with that compulsory unanimity of juIies which is now required for the decision P of cases, and providing that 9 verdict of the majority of tie twelve jurymen shall be dec:- sye. This reform of a long-existing abuse, though it will of course encounter an obstinate opposition from the more prejudicedi and big ottd portion of the legal profession,~iII ulti- mateIy be carried through, because it has not only been taken hold of by very ablesand in- fuential men, but is eminettIy sound and right D iii itself Many of the old Tories will oppose it; just as they have hcrctofore opposed aud yailAy opposed all sautary reforms, such as the rereal of the oppressive Corn Laws and the overthrow of the corrupt rotten-borough sys- tem but in the end their opposition, as in oth- CT cases will avail nothing against the united action of the more enlightened and liberal members of all parties. -.
 Under the present requirement of absolute .t,naui,nity the greatest abuses have prevailed, and enormous injustice has been done. In England it has been the practice to compel the jury to agree and often to slut them up and literally starve them iuto NeEditts which, right ly viewed, were no better than so niaIiy pcrju- ries committed for tlie sake of escaping from d tedious confinement or other hardship. The ln- stances have been frequent where one or two r obstinate and perhaps corrupted members Of q jury have, by standing out in the ciearest ca scs, compelled the remaining ten or eleven to abarton their conviction of right ard to favor the wrong, merely for tle sake of obtaining re- lief from an irksomc Imprisonment and return ing to their families and homes. 1t was this infamous practice of compelling juries to seem , unanmons whether they really were so or not, which gave rise to Popes famous line, deelar- ing that in England, {" wretches hang that ju- rymen h,ay dine"
 Under the existing practice, a minority of the jury virtually possess the power of ob- s.ructing justice and deciding questions. A single obstinate or corrupt man on jury may compel dozen new trials of plain question, aid finally force a suitor to abandon a just claim by wasting his fortune in nterminablc law expenses, or by wearing ont his patience. Such monstrous abuse can be of no possible benefit to any class of men, unless it be to the lawyers, aud the tetter portion even of that class do not desire to see the abuse pcrpetua- ted, although it may put money ill tier purs- es. It is weapon of obstruction and oppres- sion, and an instrument of wrong which should never be placed in tue hands of any man. It is infinitely better and more reasonable that the majority of a jury should have the power of decluing cases than that the minority, as the practice is now, should have the roSer ci- ther of obstructlng justice or. of forcing wrong decision. Besides, how absurd it is to expect any body of men to be of one mind in regard to any doubtful question-ald nearly every ltigated case brought before the conrts of law partakes more or less of that charac- ter. How much greater the absnrdity of compelling them to he of one mind, and of for cing a perjured unanfnity which is far as pos sible from their real opnons When jurles see the evidences of doubt and violently contested opinions on every side of the question submit ted to their decision, when they see even judg- es differing, and the lawyers all stoutly swear ing by their hopes of heaven or their fears of the opposite place, if they have any, that their particular side and no other is the right side, what can be more devoid of reason and sense than to eSpect--nuch more to exact--entlre unani,nity from them s-Hartford Times.