The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1878-01-26
The JURY SYSTEM.

The Atchison Champion of recent
date contains an able article Upon the
abuses to which our present jury system
is subject, and advises its abolition. We
are we'll aware that this mode of secur-
ing justice is open to many objections,
but we do not feel very certain that any
other plan can be devised that will i'm
prove it. We will, however, suggest an
outline of a plan that seems feasible to
us, and, in many respects, does not differ
very greatly from the one now in use.
Let the State be divided into districts
for judicial purposes, to be composed of not
less than four counties each, and always
of an even number. In each of these
-, districts there should be chosen District
Judge as is now done, and in each coun-
ty an Associate Judge, to be elected by
the voters of such county. The judge
and associate judges so chosen, shall con-
stitute court competent for the trial of
all causes originating in its district, civil
or criminal. In civil cases, a majority
of the court, when that majority includes
the district judge, shall be sufficient to
render q verdict, but in all criminal
cases the court must be unanimous in
its opinion. to convict. In civil cases,
also, if the parties do not desire a trial
before the full bench, they can waive
their rights, and the case can be heard
by the district judge, as is now the
practice, when the right to jury trial is
yielded. If. however, either party to a
suit claims a trial before a full court,
such a trial should be had, but the los
ing party should be assessed, among the
other costs, with the expense of the
county judges for the time actually en-
ployed in hearing and deciding the case.
The district judge should be paid by the
State as at present, and should attend to
business in chambers, as district judges
now do. The associate Judges should
receive certain sum per day for the
time employed, and reasonable mileage
for tb distances travelled in attending
court. Other minor provisions relating
to filling vacancies, providing for chal
lenge for sufficient cause, ETC., would, of
course have to be provided, but we think
these details could be arranged without
any great difficulty.
The expense of the plan proposed,
would, we judge, be something less than
is now paid juries Four associate judges
At say four dollars per day would be con-
siderably cheaper than the per diem of
twelve jurymen; and the mileage would
probably be something less. The ex-
pense of drawing and summoning jury
men would be saved. and doubtless less
time would be occupied in hearing and
determining causes than now. hlto>
gether, We think, a considerable saving
in costs would result, and the bulk Of
what were made would be paid by the
litigants themselves, and not as now by
the counties.
As to whether justice would be meted
out by the new plan as exactly as it is
now, is much graver question than the
expense item. We think it would be,
but are not quite sure of it. 1t would,
1t least, have some advantages over the
present practice, inasmuch as the asso-
ties, would not be likely to be subject to
the local prejudiccs which sometimes
make it difficult to obtain jury at all,
and often still more difficult to secure q
righteous verdict after a jury has been
found. Under this system, there would
be very little, if any, cause for changes
of venue.
We think, however, that no such
sweeping change as we have proposed
can be adopted soon. The constitutions
of most of the States, and that of the
United States would, we think, have to
be amended, and new codes of criminal
practice adopted, as we'll. The time for
all this has not yet come. The people
are used to the old grooves and are
not prepared for so radical departure
from old customs and precedents, and
We ourself, are in some doubt Of it's
practicabiGty. We simply make the
suggestions, and they can be taken for
what they are worth.
But, however diverse public opinion
may be in regard to the advisability of
abolishing the jury system, We think, !
hardly any one will deny that some modi- |
cafition is needed. In civil cases, the opin. |
ion of three fourths of jury of twelve, |
and of five jurymen in jury of six, |
should be sufficient for lawful verdict. i
One obstinate or prejudiced juryman,
in; cases wherein no mans life or lib
erty is in jeopardy should rot have the
power to hang jury, and thus cause
the expense and trouble of another trial.
These slight changes can be easily made,
and we believe they would add some
what 70 the effectiveness of our present
system and would be no very great limo