The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-09-06
EVILS OF THE JURY SYSTEM.

1t Is Alleged to DO the Chief Case of
Delay in Civil Cases.
There can be no doubt that the chief
cause of delay and uncertainty in the en-
forcement of the law in civil cases is tho
Democrat. The records show that the
boosted advantage of jury trial is In fact q
detriment. Under all ordinary circum-
stances, a litiRant has n better Chance of
securing his rights without a jury than with
one. 1t is practically impossible to obtain
juriea that are competent to weigh conflict
ing testimony and to determine difficult
questions. A certain numbar OF the Jurors
in every case are reasonably sure TO be
wanting in point either of intelligence or Of
integrity; and any one Of them may defeat
a lust verdict or compel an unjust one.
If We could always have trst-class citizens
to perform jury service, the system would
be much more worthy Of respect and
that such citizens seldom net in that
capacity. The average jury il so consti-
tuted that it is more likely to do the wrong
thing than the right one, sometimes inten-
tionally and sometimes otherwise. 1t gem
orally happens that one or two men control
all the rest, and so the verdict only stands
for the opinion or prejudice of these domi-
mating individuals. The familiar story OF
the eleven obstinate jurors is rereated in
our courts every day, and a majority OF the
verdicts are actually rendered by tho
twelfth man, who has more force OF char
acter than his associates.
It is reasonable to believe that jury vsr-
diets would be more satisfactory If they
could be rendered by q majority, or by
two-thirds or three-fourths of the jury.
The present requirement of unanimity
gives abundant opportunity for the worse
to get advantage of the better cause. 1t
invests the minority with power to dictate
to the majority. In theory. che jurors
have their minds made up when ths case is
closed and submitted to them; but in fact
that ia only the beginning of the process OF
reaching a conclusion. The onse is prac-
tically tried over again IL, the jury room,
and the ultimate finding ia often reached by
devices Of concession and compromise that
are entirely outside OF the question of NIB
solute right and wrong. This il the pro-
vniling practice in all cases involving the
adjustment OF accounts and the fixing OF
damages, and it rarely or never results in Il
reasonable and proper verdict. 1t could not
fail to be different in that respect IL less
Than the who'll number Of jurors wore
authorized to decide cases. That would
take away from the individual the power
to thwart and delay justice. and litigants
would thereby SECURE immunity from an
evil which il now constantly threatening
them. Connecting that tho jury system
must be maintained in some f0rm-Rnd
that is probably the feeling of tho Amer
lean pcople-thon 1t may at least be urged
that the rule of unanimity should be modi-
fed. In pll the courts composed of several
judges, including the highsst one known 80
cur laws. all decisions are rendered by u
M 10 ity. IL such n rule In safe and right
IN tLe ~ RENE court OF the United States.
Why would it not answer equally ag we'll for
luriea having dnties and responsibilities OF
II much less important character?
W#