The Pascagoula democrat-star. (Pascagoula, Miss.) 1878-1920, 1884-01-25
,Why Juries DO Not Coavict.

Some practical observations OF
great value were made on this sub
ieet in IA recent number OF the
American Lac Rerielc by Judge
Deadly, OF Oregon. The jury, as he
points out, is an institution that
has survived the visissitudes OF
seven centuries, and must be con.
sidered, therefore, to be in accord
with the genius OF the people who
have kert it up. It sustains the
courts by uniting the people with
the Judge. The taalthndings, which
now assail the courts are bat a ze-
phyr to tue whirlwind that would
overcome them IL this popular ele'
ment were wauting TO them, aud
the decisions aud sentences were
those OF judges alone.
In an interesting aud rapid
sketch of the evolution aud early
history OF the jury, Judge peady is
able to show that the more Impor-
taut deteriorations OF tue jury sys-
ten are traceable TO departures
from its early procedure. The re.
quirement that tAe verdict should
be unanimous, which is so easily
used by jury fxers to bar the course
of Justice, is moderu innovation.
Verdicts used TO be given by the
majority. Several instances are re.
lated in which obstinate Jurors who
sought TO Obstruct the agreement
of the majority oftheir fellow'mem.
bers were fined aud even imprisoned
by the court. Majority rule is the
custom OF the country in politics,
in corporation rule and society,
AMI Judge Deadly strongly urges
that we return 10 it as tue original
md proper course, at least IN civil
cases, where the ofieuse charged Is
below the grade of u felony.
PEREMToRY CHALLENGES,
of persons offered as jurors were
never allowed in the early days OF
jury trials. That man was not ut
to sit on a jury because he had
formed an intelligent opinion as to
tue case was an idea unknown to
tue common law. Until the seven
teenth century jurors were sought
for their aMEty to decide IN their
knowledge and belief. The modern
practice makes the jury consist OF
either natural or pretended igno'
ramuses. Originally jurors were
mrn who were summoned because
they were good and true men OF the
vcinage, who were acquainted with
the facts on which the case to be
tried was to turn. Our rules not
oaly exclude every one who has
learned anything about the facts,
bat admit those who there Is every
reason TO believe are utterly inca
pable of learning about them. In
telligent people, such as we pride
cuI selves on being, should not toll
crate such an absunlity.
The necessity the judges are aow
put under of making their charges
to the jury in writing, and OF OBJ.
tanning from all comment on the
facts, haye, Judge Deadly thinks,
had an unfortunate effect on the,
Jury system. The drst purpose OF
these rules was to prevent the Judge
from exercising TOO much pressure
on he men in the jury ybox by vir-
ture of his preponderant knowledge
and towering position. But, as he
points out, the same modern lite
aud culture that lesson the likeli.
hood of unanimity reduce the men,
tai distance between the judge aud
the jury. The chances that a
judge
GOULD ovERAwE A JURY,
are very much lessened by the so.
cial progress of recent centuries,
aud there is not now the reason
there was for depriving the jury OF
the views OF the Judge rs to the
facts, nor TO: imposing on him the
rigid limitations OF Il written opin 4
lou. .,ft
The responsibility for tue miscar-
riages of our juries rests in the
long run OH the public. "a pco-
ple," one writer says, "who have
not virtue or intelligence enough
lett to enable them to get twelve
good men into a iury-box aud pro
vide a wise and honest justice who
eau be trusted without a gag or q
fetter TO conduct the trial OF a
cause with them may as well admit
their inability to maintain this high
grade Of procedure and submit to
some other rule in which justice Is
administered for and upon them,
but not by and with them.'