The Sedalia weekly bazoo. [volume] (Sedalia, Mo.) 187?-1904, 1889-12-24

not Wnen the EOur cometn which
shall usher them into graves which
shall have no avenger.
TIE BAzoo has called frequent at.
tention to the abuse, permitted by the
present jury system and few years
ago published an editorial on the sub
ject which was widely quoted. Yes
terday's Globe-Democrat referring to
the matter. substantially repeats the
BAzoo's sentiments in the matter as
hitherto expressed:
The verdict in the Cruuin case has
directed attention anew to the pc
culiar uncertainty and Inconsistency
of our boosted jury system. 1t is no.
torious that jury vcrdicls in general
afford no guarantee of justice, but are
as apt to defeat as to euforce the legiti.
mate demands of the law. We are
Told that the rule which requires a
unanimous conclusion Oh the part of
twelve jurymen is the Best possible
assurance of correct anu satisfactory
action; but every intelligent citizen
knows that experience is constantly
refuting this theory. The unani-
nous verdicts are brought
about for the most part
by means and under conditions which
mock the idea of proper deliberation
and honest judgment. At best, they
are only compromises, and compro-
mises of justice are at ouce both illog-
ical and Indefinite. Very often, the
apparent agreement Of the twelve does
! not represent the sincere and exact
opinion of single one of the number;
IN order to reach basis of uuanimity,
hey severally surrender their right of
Individual judgment, and consent to
'omethiHg which really violates their
contentious views of the case. In
o.her instances and this Croniu trial
i, an exanpe-the verdict is p-acsic-
ally rendered by one man, whose
obstinacy forces the eleven to accept
MS opinion. 1t is only in the two
Enslish-speaking countries tlat q
unanimous vote is required of juries.
"a all The rest of The civilized
| World, a majority vote is COD
lsive; and there is nothing to show
1at justice suffers thereby. The laws
ire as vel. enforced in such countries
rs they are In the United States.
There is no complaint that the Iuno.
cent lack protection or that the guilty
get undue favor. We still cling to
| tue doctrine which makes every
cciminal trial a legal travesty, more
or less, when reason is plainly on the
side of different method of weighing
evidence and imposing penalties.
We are not even consistent 10 the
matter, for we apply the other rule 20
courts, composed OF several judges.
1t is not necessary for all the justices
of such tribunals 10 agree before a de-
cision can be rendered. Thus the
absurdity is presented of a verdict
found by the unanimous vote OF
twelve jurymen which may be re.
versed by the majority vote of
he judges who consider it GA appeal.
Why should these two practices exist
10 the process of determining given
case? 1t hardly ever happens that
tho decision of q reviewing court is
unanimous in case of importance |;
but the opinion of the majority is
readily accepted. Otherwise, said
courts would find it practically inn
possible to dispose of their business.
Why should not juries have a like
privilege of passing upon the merits Of
he case In q rational and substantial
way? This is q question which is
being constantly asked by the people.
1t can not be answered by citing ira
ditions and presidents. The fact that
the present method does not yield
ksound and proper results is well un-
derstoed; and the demand for .
change will have to be acceded to
sooner or later"
II