Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1884-01-12
Why Juries DO Not Convict.

From the Chicago Tribune.
the widespread dissatisfaction with the veal,
or wicked yerdcts SO often rendered by the Jury
of the day is proof that the decadence of the
jury is not the reflection of a dccadence OF the
popular sense of justice. The trouble is that
the system has grown aWry; it has become
warped by the pressure OF some of the circum.
stances of its environment. The talk of throw
ing away the jury is as foolish as the verlicts
which provoke criticism and irritation. What
Is needed is reform and a readiustment Of it,
forces to the conditions of modern life.
Some practical observations of great value
were made on this subject ina recent number OF
! the american Lar Recieto by Judge Deady OF
Oregon. The jury, as he points out. is allihsti-
tuition that has survived the vicissitudes OF
eoren oanturies. and must be considered there.
fore to be in accord with the genius of the peo-
pie who have kept it up. 1t sustains the courts
by uniting the people with the Judge. The fault
findings which now assail the courts are but a
zephyr to the whrlwind that would overcome
them ii this popular element were wanting to
them, and the decisions and sentences were
those Of judges alone.
In an interesting and rapid sketch of the eyo-
luton and early history OF the Jury Judge
Deadly is able to show that the more important
deterioratons OF the jury system are traceabIe
to departures from its early procedure The re-
qulreinent that the verdict should be unani-
ihooo, WHICH IL 81 easily uSeu ny Jury -nXefS TO
bar the course OF justice, is modern innoya-
ton Nerdicts used to be given by the ma
lorty. Several instances are related in which
obstinate jurors who sought to obstruct the
agreement of their fellow-inembers were fined
and even imprisoned by the court Majority
rule is the custom of the country in politics. and
corporation rule, and society, and Judge Deadv
strongly urges that we return to it as to the
original and proper course, at least in civil
cases. and IN criminal cases where the ofense
Charged is below the grade of felony.
Peremptory challenges Of persons offered az
jurors were never allowed in the early DAYS of
jury trials. That man was not fit to sit on a
jury because he had formed an Intelligent Opn-
ION as to the case was an idea unknown to the
common law. Until the seventeenth century
jurors Were sought for their ability to decide on
their knowledge and belief. The modern prac-
tice makes the jury consist of either natural or
pretended ignOramuses Originally Jurors were
men who were summoned because they were
good and true men Of the vicinage, who were
acquainted with the facts on which the case to
clnde every one who has learned ANYTHING
about the facts. but admit those who there is
every reason to believe are utterly incapable OF
learning about them. Intelligent people. such
as pride ourselves on being should not toll
crate such an absurdity.
The necessity the judges are now put under CT
making their charges to the Jury in writing. and
of abstaining from all comment on the facts.
has, Judge Deadly thinks, had an unfortunate
effect On the jury system. The first purpose of
these rules was to prevent the Judge from exer-
cising too much pressure on the men in the
jury-bOx by virtue Of his prepOnderant knowledge
and towering position But. as he points out.
the same modern life and culture that lessen the
likelihood of unanlmity reduce the mental dis
lance between the judge and the Jury. The
chances that judge could overawe Jury are
very much lesseued by the social progress of
recent centuries. and there is not now the rea-
son there was for depriving the jury of the
views of the judge as to the facts, nor for i'm
posing on him the rigid limitations of a written
opinion.
The responsibility for the miscarriages of our
juries rests in the long run on the public. "a
people," our writer says, "who have not virtue
or intelligence enough left to enable them to
get twelve good men into jury box and pro-
vide wise and honest justice who can be trusted
without gag or fetter to conduct the trial of
cause with them may as well admit their ina
billy 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