Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1876-02-24
The Jury System.

uS VI y oy St0uA'
There is a man in Wisconsin who
means to do what lie can to free our
legal system from the absurd and in.
furious requirement of a unanimous
verdict of juries. He is Senator r.
j. Flint, and he has introduced into
the Legislature of the State a bill
providing that in civil cases three
tonrths Of a jury can give decisive
verdict, and that in criminal cases
eleven jurors can.
A legal objection has been made
to the principle set forth in this bill.
which is that there are judicial de-
cssions 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 of common law, when the
value Of the thing in dispute exceeds
$50, "the right of trial by jury shall
be preserved" In this phrase, does
''trial of jury" mean that a unani-
nous verdict shall be preserved We
lerve the point for those learned in
the law to decide
We are not prepared to indorse, in
detail, Mr.. Flint's bill, in asmuch as
the three-fourths vote ought to be
sufficient to convict crimini, a well
IS to decide civil case, but the prin
ciple on which the bill is framed, is a
thoroughly good one. 1t is not clear
whether the second section means
that case should 60 on whether or
not Juror falls sick, but this should
be provided. Under the present sys-
tenn Of sickness of one juror, real of
pretended, natural or brought about
by drugs, pOlsons, etc, puts an end
to the trial, unless both parties are so
sure of winning that they agree to
have it go on without him.
In reply to the main question !:
"Should a three fourth verdicts be
decisive p we say "yay," and do so
for the following reasons:
/. The circumstances which once
demanded that verdict should be
unanimous no longer exist. The or
iginal purpose of requiring unanimity
was to protect a defendant from the
malice of persons belonging to a
higher class than his own, or the
splteful hatred of those belonging to
a lower class A nation which has
no classes needs no safeguard against
class feeling.
2 If three fourths vote were de
cisive, buying verdict would be
both too costly and too dangerous.
This is now unfortunately common
proctice. The purchase of one Juror
assures a disagreement, which is
tantamount to the acquittal of the
defendant of the defeat of Justice.
If four jurors had to be bought, the
danger of detection would be multi
piled many fold.
3. The change would hasten the
execution Of justice, for it would make
disagreements, re-trials, etc, very
infrequent
4 1t would therefore save great
deal of loss of time, trouble, and ex-
pense.
). 1t would prevent injustice to in
nocent defendants. At present, a
person brought to trial must convince
every juror of his innocence or else
rest under suspicion and under dan
ger of new trial at any time. The
change would make it impossible for
two or three cross-grained, maleyo
lent persons to prevent the triumphant
acquttal of any innocent man.
6. 1t would put an end to the
practice of rendering verdicts which
are in violation Of the iury-oath. At
present, the first vote rarely gives q
verdict. There is a majority and a
minority. The latter must yield, il
any decision is to be arrived at.
SO either the minority violates the OBJ
legation of an oath by bringing in a
verdict which it really does not be-
lieve in, or else compromise is made
(the majority, for instance, agrees to
'smanslauter" ''instead of murder,
and thus the verdict expresses no
body's true opinion.
The change will tend to reconcile
the methods of law and arbitration.
Whenever a board OF arbitrators sits,
a majority vote decides. The con-
slant resort to arbitration as a meth
Cd of settling disputes shows its eff.
cheney. France, Denmark, New York
City, English employers and en-
ployes, and merchrntile bodies every.
where, have regular arbitration
courts. The most important law
case of the country, the issue ofwhich
prevented a war between two great
powers, Great Britain and America,
was settled at Geneva, in 1872, by a
majority vote. If the arbtrators
had to bring in unanimous verdict
they never would have done so, and
we should have probably gone to war
winh England to force her TO pay our
claim.
8. Our whole law system, save in
this anamalous case, is based on ma
iority rule. A majority of judges
decide the gravest questions of law
and sometimes of fact, but eleven out
of twelve jurors are incompetent to
decide the pettiest criminal or civil
matter. 1t took bare majority on
the supreme Bench to reserve the
legal tender decision, and affect every
contract entered into by Americans
tor years, but it takes unanimou;
vote of a jury to convict John Smith
of stealing legal tender dollar.
Finally, the change we propose
is democratic. The Fundamental prin
cipe of our political system is tha
the majority must rule. Why not tbs