Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1876-02-09
THE JURY SYSTEM.

There Is . man III w lSCOtaSXu WHO
means to do what he can 10 free our
legal system from the absurd and in
furious requirement of unanimous
verdict by juries. He is Senator r.
!. Flint, and he has introduced into
the Legislature of that State bill
providing that in civil cases three
fourths OF o jury can give . decisive
verdict, aad that in criminal cases
eleven Jurors can.
A legal objectien has been made
to the principle set forth IN this bill,
which is that there are Judicial de-
cisions on record to the effect that
"jury verdict" means unanimous
decision. But this may be special
to certain states. The legal question
would depend upon the constitution
al amendment which provides that
in suits at common law, when the
value of the thing in dispute exceeds
$40, "the right of trial by jury shall
be preserved" In this phrase, does
s'trial by jury" mean that a unani-
NOUS verdict shall be preservedg We
leave the point for those learned IN
the law to decide.
We are not prepared to indorse, In
detail, Mr.. Flint's bill, inasmuch as
the three-fourths vote ought to be
sufficient to convict criminal, as
well as to decide civil case, but the
principle on which the bill is framed
is thoroughly good one. 1t is not
clear whether the second section
means that case shall go on whether
OF not q juror falls sick, but this
should be provided. Under the
present system, the sickness Of one
Juror, real or pretended, neutral or
brought abcat by drugs, poisons,etc>
puts an end to the trial, unless both
parties are so sure of winning that
they agree to have it go on with
cut him.
In reply to the main question
"Should a three-fourths verdict be
decisiveW we say Eyes" and do SO
for the following reasons:
|. The circumstance which once
demanded that verdict should be
unanimous no longer exist. The or
iginal purpose of requiring unanimi-
ty wus to protect defendant from
the malice OF persons belonging to
higher class than his own, or the
spiteful hatred of those belonging to
u lower class. A nation which has
no classes needs no safeguard against
class feeling.
>. If a thrce-foarths vote were de-
visive, buying verdict would be
both too costly and too dangerous.
This is now unfortunately common
practice. The purchase Of one juror
assures a disagreement, which is
tantamount to the acquittal of the
defendant and the defeat of justice.
If four jurors had to be bought, the
danger of detection would be multi
plied many-fold.
3. The change would hasten the
execution of justice, for it would
anake disagreeMents, re-trials, ETC.,
very infrequent.
4. 1t would therefore save great
deal OF loss Of time, trouble, and ex-
pense.
5. It would prevent iajustice to
innocent defendants. At present. a
person brought to trial naust con-
vince every juror of his innocence,
or else rest under suspicion and
under danger of new trial at any
time. The change would make it
impossible for two or three cross
grained, maleyolent persons to pre-.
vent the triumphant acquittal of any
innocent man.
6. 1t would put an end to the
practice of rendering verdicts which
ure in violation of the jury-oath. At
present, the first vote rarely gives a
verdict. There is majority and a
minority. The latter must yield, if
any decision is to be arrived at. SO
either she minority violates the OBJ
ligatien of an oath by bringing in a
verdict which it really does not be-
lieve Sn, or else a compromise is
made Athe majority, for instance,
agrees to granddaughter" 'instead of
murder'), and thus the verdict ex-
presses nobody's true opinion.
Z. The change would tend to rec
oncile the methods of law and arbi-
traitor. Whenever a board of arbi-
traitors sits, majority vote decides.
The constant resort to arbitration as
a method of settling disputes shows
It's eth 81 pnnN Erannn nnn,,,n,.l