The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1859-09-21
THE PACIFIC
Commercial Advertiser.
Y, SEPT. q.
Unnuimify Of Jurics.

uunhnhity Oh CuThess
Late London papers inform us that Lord Camp
bell, Chief Justice of England, (now Lord Chan
cellor,) recently introduced into the House Of
Lords a bill for the abolition-so far as relates to
civil causes-of the law which requires that the
verdict of n jury shall be unanimous. Lord
Lindhurst, one of the most learned of English
%jurists, opposed the bill, and the measure was
lost by a majority of sixteen-notwithstanding
the high source from which it originated. The
House seemed to regard the proposed reform as
unnecessary. and as an innovation upon a custom
which had been tested and approved by long ex-
perience.
Lord Campbell urged in favor of his bill the
trouble and expense caused by the dissenting of one
Juror; that a second trial was never so satisfactory
as a first one; that the necessity of returning a unan-
imous verdict often led to improper compromises by
the Jurors; and lastly, that the operation of the change
he proposed had been attended with good results in
Scotland. In reply to him Lord Lindhurst stated
that the present law was one of the fundamental laws
of the kingdom, that it had existed some 500 years,
and had been admired by the most eminent lawyers
of the country, and that no satisfactory cause for a
change had been shown. He stated that Judge Best
says that in nineteen cases out of twenty the jury
never retire, and that in not more that one case IN
500 was il d discharged in consequence of non agree
ment. He doubted whether a verdict rendered by
nine would be as satisfactory as verdicts now are, and
thought that the losing party would avail himself OF
all possible litigation to set the verdict aside. If nine
Jurors could render a verdict in civil cases, he wanted
to know why the same number would not answer in
criminal cases. He thought the strongest argument
in favor of the present system was that by requiring
unanimity, full and complete discussion is incurred,
the minority instead of yielding too readily to the
views of the majority, naturally being led to resist
conclusions upon which they differ, and for which
their sense of duty makes them unwilling to be an
swerabIe. The Lord Chancellor, taking similar
prounIs cited n case i'm which three IurOrS argued
with the other nine, and finally induced them to
change their opinions, stating that had the proposed
change been in operation, the verdict would have been
an unjust one. as the Line would hardly have listened
to the reasoning of the minority"
The subject of the modification of the law re-
curing u%nanimity in juries-so far at least as
civil actions are concerned-has given rise to
some discussion in the United States as well as
in England and the question bids fair to be
thoroughly canvassed. One important argu-
ment against the policy of requiring a unanimous
verdict, is found in the fact that the opposite
system has always worked well, whenever tried.
In Scotland, nine out Of the twelve ~jurymen are
sufficient to decide a case-and perhaps in no part
of the world are the ends of justice better attained.
In France, among several systems tried, that of
a simple majority of seven against five has been
found to work the best-though a majority of
the judges may, under some circumstances, set
aside, or change the verdict, to one of acquittal.
The Hawaiian law, under which we live. is
similar in this respect to that of Scotland, and to
the law proposed by Lord Campbell in the Brit
ish House of Lords, with the exception that it
applies to criminal as well as civil causes. In
both civil and criminal cases, nine out of the
twelve ~jurymen are sufficient to render a decisive
verdict. In the experience of the Hawaiian courts
this law has been found to work well. 1t has
expedited business at the same time that it has
worked in accordance with the aims of justice,
and we believe it has given general satisfaction.
Indeed it is "A question if a decisive majority Of
three-fourths is not better calculated for the at
tainment of substantial justice than the requisi-
ton for a unanimous verdict would be. True,
the cases of disagreement of juries are compare
lively infrequent. Yet it has many times hap
pened that justice has been defeated by the oppo-
sition of some stupid fellow, who could not or
would not be convinced of the merits of the case
or who could not persuade the other eleven 50 OBJ
~stinate'' men to come over to his side and how
often. too, its ways have been perverted by the
operation of bribery upon a single one of the
jurors-neither of which cases could occur if a
majority of nine against three possessed the power
of rendering the verdict. In all ordinary trials
where the evidence is clear, and the case reasona-
bly, plain, at least nine out of the twelve jurors
are ready to unite in opinion and a law which
permits three-fourths of the jury to decide the
cause is beneficial to.the ends of Justice, inasmuch
as it prevents the case from being, virtually, de-
cided by a small minority of three or less.
The old law which has so long existed in Eng
land, requiring a unanimity of jurors, has no
doubt operated well. Its antiquity, especially, of
fers a strong claim to popular favor. Nevertheless
it was deemed by so high an authority as Lord
Campbell, susceptible of improvement, and al
though the conservative British people are as yet
unprepared for such an innovation, it is possible
that at some future day they will regard it with
a more favorable eye. Certainly, if the law
authorizing nine of the twelve jurors to decide
the verdict, should work as well in England and
America as it has in other countries where it has
been introduced, the peaple would never have
reason to regret its adoptien,-
4THr Asuxwxvs-M NJ nSR~s@ 1->x~- Ioe,~o