New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1858-02-11

In his last annual report, the Attorney-Gen
stasesthat the greatest practical difficulty in the
way NJ Just enforcement Of the criminal law, is
the exemption from jury duty allowed to large
number of the citizens of New Orleans wide
discretion being lodged with our juries in capital
cases. whether to render yericts Of manslaughter of
guilty without capital punishment, Of guilty, with
out Qualification he considers that unless those jures
are composed of our most intelligent citizens there
can b no certainty that proper punishment will fol-
low crime. Dat Of the twelve thousand voters in
New Orleans It is estimated that at least enethrd
are either exempt by law or necessarily excused from
service. In view OF these facts he recommends that
the exemptions be repealed. Not possessing the
legal learning and experience of the Attorney-Gen-
eral, We are unable to perceive how this measure
would afford an adequate remedy for the evil, which
Is, undoubtedly serious one. 1t appears to that
those instances in which crimes of the most atrocous
charapter escape the penalty Of the law altogether
or meet with only secondary punishment, are to be
attributed, almost invariably to the obstinacy cor
ruptidn or imbece prejudces, Of one or two indiyi
duais, rather than to general lack OF intelligence
on the part of our juries. The Attorney-General
recognizes this abuse of the discretionary power
oftenpractised by single juror in cases where his
fellows unanimously agreed upon the guilt Of the
accused but without material notifications in the
crime of murder, he Is not in favor of withdrawing
the discretion vested in jures He believes that the
evil can be remedied by infusing greater degree of
intelligence into our iuries. We grant that inte
gende or at least decided common sense is quality
quite as desirable in the jurybox honesty, of
WHICH we fear there is sometimes little enough. But
then some minds are so constituted that education
only to fix deeper the root of early preudiees
and ortify the individual in mnlish obstnaey when
ever he fancies that be has formed his opinion Such
a person precisely we should select as the single
juror spoken of by the Attorney General who, EEK
ercising the discretion vested in him by law, in a
spirit of narrow mercy or of stubborn contumacy,
can force verdict by which the example that should
be made of great criminal is converted into
secondary punishment, comparatively without ter
ror.
But, admitting. we do, that intelligence In the
jurybox is indispensable to the proper administration
Of Justice and that there is often woful lack of it in
our ues how reform in this respect to lie effected
to any great extent by Withdrawing the jury exemp
tons? Are those exempted generally of higher
order Of intelligence than the citizens who are liable
to Jury duty? Are they less fallibe and more con-
scieltious in the discharge of their duties? The
AttdrneyGeneral will hardly contend for their supe
rorty their fellow-ctzens in any of these par
tieuars The sole advantage, then, it seems, to be
derived from Withdrawing the exemptions, would be
to aaord the means of empanneling iuries more
readily, not Of improving their composition How,
in fact can the latter desirable result be effected
simply by increasing the material 10 form panel
Will the Attorney General, when he has satisfied
himself that the candidate for juratory distinction
acquainted with the nature of oath, proceed to