New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-03
THE JURY SYSTEM.

!
We have already animadverted upon the
| defects of the jury system as it exists at
present, with all the defects arising from
| the fact that it originated at time and in
a country wherein far different polity
| prevailed than that which now obtains, at
| the present time, and in this country.
| 1t has from time to time been shown
that the jury system, as the law now
shapes it, instead of being a conservator
of peace and promoter of the ends of
| justice, is simply a means whereby viola
tors of law escape.
The evil of the jury system is great
enough in being shelter for instead Of
a means of Furnishing crime. Yet to this
intrinsic evil another has been added,
making the system still more odious, and
still more inconsistent with the great pur-
pose of law-the prevention of crime by
its certain punishment. We mean the
custom of packing juries, which, during
the past few years, has been rapidly gain
tradiction when we say that, under this
method, coming more and more into
practice, the business of a juryman in
our courts is becoming profession, al
most as much SO as that of any attorney.
Should the present practice continue, it
is not too much to expect that the "call-
ing of juryman may yet be made the
subject of license tax.
1t will not be denied by any one &C
quainted with the courts that there is a
class of men constantly hanging around
them in the hope and, to great extent,
with the expectation of being put upon
jury. Three dollars per day, with feed
in case of detention, is no bad pay. 1t is
as good as the pay of most mechanical
occupations, and not so hard to earn. 1t
is, therefore, desirable position to those
who are out of employment, or who pre-
fer the slothful torpor of a. jury box to
active work
The practical evil which this perversion
of the Jury system works, in addition to
its intrinsic defects, arises from the cir
cumstance that it makes bribery not only
possible matter but very probable one.
At the time when juries were impaneled
strictly in accordance with the spirit and
intent of the law, bribery was a very
difficult operation. It was almost impos-
sible to ascertain who might be placed on
any specific jury, and hence it was not
easy to ascertain whom to bride. But
now, the probable jurymen who hang
around the courts, always ready for a
''take, are easily approached, some of
them at any rate, and as easily moved to
falsify their oaths for consideration. If
this were not done, would it be possible
for SO many criminals, especially those
who can command money, to break
through the meshes of the law as easily
as an elephant would break through an
ordinary net?
Surely the judges who preside over our
courts of law should be awake to this
fact. The remedy rests mainly with them.
We believe the law gives them ample
power in relation to the drawing of iures;
and certainly this power should be SO ex-
ercised as to bring together as jurors a
sufficient number of competent men, I'M
improbable in, character, to fulfil the
behests of the law. There is no limit to
the number of jurymen to be drawn for
any term. Why not, then, if the jury
system must exist for a time longer, so
carry out the law as to prevent the JUS
tice-impeding practice of selecting pro-
fessional talesmen from among the crowds
who always hang around the court, when
the Jury roll is called, in hope Of Job?