New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-07-04
UNNATUEAL SELECTION IN JURIEs

LNN1ICEHL SFLECIJON ~ OtHIES.
The difficulty which is being experienced in
obtaining jury to try the Chicago Anarchists
affords fresh illustration of the effectiveness
of the present sy stem. In this case the trouble
arises from the fact that every II an OF ordinary
intelligence has necessarily formed an opinion
upon the question in issue. 1t is equally true
that nearly every one who has formed an Opln-
ion dsapproves of he doctrines and practices
of the Anarchists. Bat this is saying no more
than that the majority of American citizens are
intelligent and patriotic, that they understand
the advantages of their own laws and institu-
tons, and perceive the folly and wickedne-s of
all attempts to overthrow American cvili2a-
tion Yet the existing jury system 80 operates
IA to permit the rejection of intelligent and
patriotic Jurors, on no other ground than their
fitness In these days of ditusod know ledge
and rapid communication OF news and opinion
the fact that man either does not know of
| events which are in evcrybody's mouth, or has
| formed no opinion about them, is necessarily an
mpeachment of his Intelligence. But it is pre-
cisely this class of dull and sluggish people
whom it is sought to put in the jury-box to try
the Anarchists.
In such case as this, hen the whole nation
is interested in and has followed the events, it
is nearly impossible to find the peculiar kind of
Jurors desired by the defence but if they are
found, the publicity and general intcrrstOf the
case render it certain that they will b. persons
of SO inferior an order of mind as to be unfit
for the work put upon them. NO doubt the
Anarchists and their lawyers think they have a
better chance OF escape with phenOmenaly
stupid jurv than with one of average in,elli-
gence ard they may be right i'll this but the
question of most Importance il, whether I'D the
trial of criminals who avOw themselves enemies
of our whole system of civilization, the admin
stiation of justice renders necessary the
| practical exclusion from the panel of repre-
sentative citizens of the republic. Of course the
jury system works just in the same way in ali
important criminal cases, and the general result
is that in proportion to the notoriely of IA crime
the probability that i; will be adequately dealt
with diminishes. To tais is attributable the
many failures of justice which occnr in capital
cases and thus il is that method of procedure
Intended To secuIe equal justice tends always.
when the crime is specially h-inous, to assist
the criminal in escaping lis deserts.
change in the practice cuitaiing the num-
Der of peremptory challenges allowed to the
Defence and amending the "causes" for which
other challenges may be made, would undoubt-
edly be resisted by lawyers engaged largely in
criminal practice, for it would deprive them of
one OF their most effective Weapons. But we do
not think it eau De shown that such Changes
would be otner than advantageous to the public
interests. For example. refusal to allow
challenges because IA juror has informed himself
concerning the in hand, even when he has
also arrived at definite opinion would be en-
TREY justified, and in some States this reform
has already been introduced. OF course if n
juror declares that new evidence would
change his opinion he ought TO be challenged.
but there are few cases Of this kind, and when
such statements are made they are often merely
intended to furnish means of avoiding Jury
duty. Ii is i'll important trials especially that
intelligence in the jury box is required, and a
system which makes it almost impossi ole to OBJ
tain representative panel is clearly defective
and in need of radical reform. Needless ea
penditare of public fun DIS needless uncer-
tainty in the administration of Justice result
from the existing methods Of selectiug iuries.