Morning journal and courier., 1883-03-22
THE PRIvrLEaEs OF CRIME

Perhaps no cage better illustrates the enor- nous advantages with which the law invests persons accused of crime than the trial of Dukes, the assassin of Captain Mutt, whose daughter he had foully slandered. This murderer was acquitted in the face of the dearest evidence. He was well known po- Iitieal boss and it was by the most corrupt in trigues, as our recent dispatches show, that his acquittal was obtained. The judge s. verely reprimanded the jury and with this reprimand the power of the law terminated
 Dukes committed a murder that was fully proved he was acquitted by an undoubted fraud ; yet so far as he is concerned there absolutely nothing more that can be done and he goes scot-free. Now on the other hand, if he had been innocent and had been convicted in spite of ths ciearest evidence of his innocence. the judge could have set aside the verdict, or Dukes could have taken his case to the Supreme court and obtained a new trial. The State has no such rights. No matter how prejudiced or corrupt the verdict, the people cannot appeal Of course no safeguard necessary to prevent an unjust conviction should be taken away, but it w specially favored. Ia 1t unjust to the accused to insist that his guilt or his innocence shall not be finally determined except upon 8 fair trial? Innocence csn scarcely claim any more. Is it really essential to sound and safe criminal jurisprudence that all further proceedings should be stopped and murderer turned loose upon the com munity because he has obtained 0 fraudulent acquittal? If so it is hard for the average mind to see it. Why should not the State possess the same right to have corrupt yer dict set aside that the criminal has? We say criminal, for if, as in Dukes case, the ac- quittal is clearly against evidence, he is 9 proved criminal.
 It is said the prisoner ought not to be tried twice; ''twice put in jeopardy of life, we believe, is the legal phrase. If he has had one unfair trial we should not think another fair one ought to be considered putting him in jeopardy, especially if he is innocent If he happens to be guilty jeopardy" is just about what is wanted, and the more jeopardy the better. If the jury disagree the prisoner can be tried over again. That does not ap- pear to be considered jeopardy. But if they fraudulently agree to acquit him, for the State to get new trial is jeopardy. We be- heve that in cases where the jury disagree the theory is that there has been no trial. We should say it was much less trial where the prisoner corrupts the jury and that the law ought not to let him escape one crime by committing another.
 Among the other high privileges possessed by criminals is that of keeping silent. They cannot be questioned, much less compelled to testify This is peculiar to the system of Iav that prevails in England and this coun- try It is not so anywhere else in the civil ized world Bentham. the English jurist, said of this law, fifty years ago or more, that in every criminal case thsre was one witness who knew all about it. that was the accused, and that this was the one witness the English courts always refused te call. In Germany and France he is the hrgt witness that is called. Benthana insisted that there could be no injustice in asking an innocent man to tell his story; that to refuse to let him tell it was to take away his best defense. To suffer the guilty to keep silent was often to throw away the best means of proving his guilt. One-haIf of this argument has been endorsed In Connecticut The prisoner, by an get comparatively recent, may tell his story if he wishes. The other half of the argument is still rejected, for, if he prefers not to testify, he cannot be compelled to- The law further provides that if he does not testify it shall not operate to his prejudice. This might be called statute forbidding the jury to think.
 There is good deal of humbug in what are called in high sounding phrase "the bull warks of Anglo-Saxon liberty" They pro