The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1891-08-27
THE JURY SYSTEM.


jury system in the North American
Review for August, under the head
ing, "The Failure of the jury Sys-
tem." Although this title would in
dictate prejudgment of the case, yet
the writer advances some PROPOSE
tions that it would be difficult to con-
flute. There is great deal of motor
ious fact in his opening pa agraph,
which reads as follows:
Chance stands at the threshold of
the Jury system, as jurors are Sc
lected by lot, regardless of their
ability to weigh close questions of
fact. Ignorance follows in the foot
steps of chance, since the man who
has formed opinions upon the topics
of the day is liable to challenge.
The force of the remark just
quoted must be felt by everybody
who has witnessed the empaneling Of
jury in any case that has attracted
public attention and comment pre-
vious to its coming into court. Any
man who is intelligent enough to
| read the newspapers and has mental
ity active enough to think of what he
reads will, if he is at the same time
conscientious enough to acknowledge
the truth on oath, not do for a juror
in modern times. If he has formed
an opinion that will require evidence
to remove, to quote the formula OF
jury examinations, he is OF no use in
| the box. Yet it would be funny
kind of opinion that should not re-
| quire evidence to remove. The Judge
hearing the case may have full
knowledge at first hand of all the
material facts, yet this does not dis
qualify him although he has power
to set aside the verdict If contrary to
|
the evidence actually presented. Mr.,
Thatcher, in attacking the rule fnr
unanimity of juries which, happily,
| does not obtain in Hawaii, say
when the unanimity of twelve men
was first required, jury was COM
| posed of those who had personal
knowledge of the question in dispute
and were only witnesses. This
would indicate that the requirement.
of jurors coming with blank minds to
the trial of case is comparatively
modern innovation.
The writer of the Review article
thinks that the surroundings of
court must be confusing to man
brought from his bank or store, his
farm or mill; that if he is man who
has important affairs of his own to
neglect for jury duty, he will chafe
beneath the damaging confinement
and not be in condition to render
an intelligent and impartial verdict.
There is doubtless much truth in
this opinion, and nobody can tell
how many cases involving vital in
terests to the parties, right in Homo
lulu, have been hastily and largely
by guesswork decided by iuries,
through the lmpatence of restraint
and detention from business and do
nestle duties felt by individual
Jurors. The writer quoted goes on
to refer to the facility with which
men of superior intelligence, capa-
city for dealing with intricate affairs,
and integrity that is proof against
corruption, can get themselves ex-
cused from jury service. But as
Stunning that juries are composed of
men of average intelligence, he con
siders from the nature of the system
that it is not to be expected that they
will render Just verdicts. In the in
fancy of the system trials were very
brief, one day being perhaps Sutfi-
] cient for the longest, while the inter.