The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1892-07-07
ABOLISH THE UNIT RULE FOR THE
s{. JURY.

The conviction is steadily growing in
the minds of thinking people that there
is something radically wrong with our
Jury system as it now stands.
Time after time some criminal escapes
the penitentiary or the gallows for
months, even for years, after the perpe-
tration of the crime, and In some instan-
ces escapes entirely, although the COM
munity has no shadow Of doubt as to his
guilt and hope for q speedy conviction
and punishment.
Time and again the County is put to
the expense Of trying the same offender
for the same offence, and finally the Jury
becoming wearied of the case, and de-
spairing of ever reaching verdict, pre-
fer to set the prisoner at liberty rather
than have another lnistrial entered, there
by rendering necessary the same pro-
ceedings al some future Court and with
the same result probable.
The fruitful cause Of these repeated
mist1ials is the law that requires the
twelve Jurymen to come to unanimous
agreement before they can find verdict.
By such system one man on a jury
can defeat justice forever, and he is not
accountable to any tribunal for his con-
duct unless he could be proven guilty OF
bribery.
AS an illustration of the cumbersome
operation and perhaps dangerous effect
Of the unit law with Juries, we cite the
following examples. :. James Haddon was
tried at the January term OF Court for
murder. We are reliably informed that
the Jury stood II TO l in favor, OF YER
dict Of guilty. AS the one vote caused
mistrial James Haddon was again tried
at the last term of Court. The Jury sat
up all night and yet stood 10 to 2 for con-
victior. We have this condition of affairs
then: Out Of two Juries, aggregating "a
men, 81 have been convinced that James
Haddon was guilty OF the charge OF MUIR
der. Three have though otherwise, and
the opinion of the three has had equal
weight with the opinion of the twenty
one, and James Haddon viii have to be
tried for the third time. TO put the above
facts In other words: Ous Of the twenty
four men that have sat upon the case, one
jury of twelve men could have been Sc
jlected who would have reached unani-
nous verdict OF guilty, and another Jury
could have besn selected three-fourths OF
whom would have favored conviction.
Other cases could be cited where one
corrupt or eccentric or foolish Juror had
defeated the will ofthe other eleven honest
and conscientious Jurors.
We submit that undue importance is
thus attached to. the individual Jurors
opinion. Too great q power is placed in
his hands. Where only one is corrupt the
balance are powerless to enforce their
common opinion. i
The preservation of peace and order
and the enforcement Of the laws demand
that this importance be. taken from the
single Juror and that g t'Eo-thirds or
three fourths rule be established. No is-
sue sue can be so vital but that the common
conclusion Of nina, men out Of twelve
should settle it. No greater majority is
ever required among any body Of men.
yYesubmit the following propositions as
our main reasons for desiring this change,
and we believe the facts viii sustain
them: s.a s..
( /. Innocence will be in no more danger
where there Is q three-fourths (or 81 rule,
than where there is unit (or 12) rule ne
cessary for the fintiing Of verdict by the
Jury.
{ 2. Guilt will be punished more often
and more speedily by the three-fourths
than by the unit rule, and as q conse-
quence, and it is supreme in its impor-
tance, mob law viii subsids and lynch
ing viii take place, only in rare cases.
If these two propositions are true then
there can be no reasonable grounds for
opposing the change, nor can the change
be brought about Zoo speedily.