The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1874-10-14
Testimony OF Persons Accused of
Crime.

recent trial in the Supreme Court has callet
fresh attention 10 this subject. There is mael
that can be said with truth on both sides Of th,
question. The Legislature, we think, has never
enacted any law which prohibits such testimony
10 criminal cases. There is no foundation in nat
ural Justice for the old rule of common law which
excludes the evidence Of parties either in civil OF
criminal matters. But our courts have always
acted on that rule, and the only good reason we
know for retaining it, is the undesirable impress
sion mad by frequent radical changes OF law.
That the rule Is artificial is obvious from all prae-
teal experience. We always feel that we can do
justice to a better if we hear what be says
himself. The FIRST great criminal Of all was al
forded an opportunity to explain his act and
a sorry showing the defendant made Of it, even
citing his wife to testify for him against herself
Even the famous tribunal in Hades used to hear
aad then punish.
The reasons for excluding this kind of evidence
in the Common Law OF England were that it
was too much temptation to perjury; that it was
likely to misead honest juries and gave too plau-
sible pretexts for ures to satisfy their eouscen-
ces in acquittng and that it would override the
presumption of innocence which the law throws
around oil men until full proof OF guilt.
These reasons are far from being satisfactory.
Perjury is as much committed when defendant
swears to false answer as if be testified falsely.
Parties incur moral as well US legal guilt BY sub
Orning Others to perjury fully as by direct PERU
~, and we fear they DO as easily. There is more
force in the suggestion that unframed minds are led
astray by faneied necessity Of believing or dis
believing evidence. But that difficulty exists in
all trials. The correctness of an opinion depends
on the nature Of the man who forms il. Asa
recent writer says truly enough: The number
Of persons who have rational basis for their
belief is probably iufuitesimal for ilegitma;e
not only determine the convictions Of
those who DO not examine. but usually give
dominating bias to the reasoniugs OF those who
do Human nature is only too sure to lean
to its interests, Prejudices and suspicious. The
real ground to take in Judicial enquiry is the
same in court as out. All conclusions we reach
against our fellows should be Judicial, that is to
say, should aim at learning the truth after hear
ing both sides. No intelligent person would at.
tempt this without giving party chance if he
wishes TO speak for himself The question is not
whether he viii be more or less liable to state the
truth, for all know be is less likely but whether
be eu tell the truth, and if be can whether in
Justice he ought not to be heard.
As for the idea that prisoner thus loses the
benefit OF the presumption Of innocence, we have /
'nly to say that il he is innocent be never thinks
{ loss, and if he is guilty be may as well lose it.
Statutes in Eugland and the United States
ave generally abolished the old rule of law, and .
PARTIES can usually testify there in all cases. In
,quity, they had long done so, practically. Even
Common Law allows parties to testify in certain
asses to their own accounts, as if one needed to
,ollect his bill mure than to defend his life The
&c. is, that no intelligent jadge or jury ever felt
hat they had injured man by hearing him.
Every one knows how easy it Is TO give a clew to
doubtful matters it be has it. Dishonest state
nents and prevaricatrons are also very likely to
ecoil 90 the one who makes them.
But, as We said above, the real reason for
Oubt about change nov. is the effect Of so Sc
ious change as this on minds which have learn
j none to well to appreciate the force and mean
" Of systemaIized law.