The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-12-16
LEGAL COMMON SENSE.

An absurd and vicious quality in the av-
erage juror is his proneness to acquit a
guilty ian or woman on the plea that the
person wronged, whether robbed or MUIR
dered, was not altogether useful or desir-
able member Of the community; that he
had sinned against his best lights; that he
was or had been Incorporate, licentious
and internationally indolent; that his early
formative influences were much better and
brighter than those of his murderer, and
that therefore the lack of beneficent FORM
alive influences and the presence of de-
moralizing influences were sound reasons
why the murderer should be excused for
killing one who had lived unworthy of far
better early lights. opportunities and
blessed formative influences than his MUIR
derer.
This kind Of logic is intensely feminine
in its flavor and yet it carries the day not
seldom with juries. The flaw in all this
view lies in the fact that the effective pro-
lection of society cannot afford to be sacri-
feed to sentimental vagaries; it is a ter
ribly practical necessity that confronts us.
The law cannot undertake to determine
whether, if when babies. the murderer had
changed places in the cradle with his vic
tim, that the murderer and his victim at
maturity would have exchanged careers
and fates. Among 10000 men or women
tried for exactly the same crime probably
there is the widest difference in the pres
ence or absence of good or evil early
formative influences in shape of heredity,
IL,
strength, temperance, poverty, etc, but
in settling the question of the guilt and
responsibility of the criminal the law has
to begin somewhere; has to reduce legal
responsibility for crime to its lowest terms.
The law cannot afford to consider FORM
alive influences; that would be imprac-
ticable; the law inquiries. is the prisoner
guilty; does he know right from wrong:
is he medically and legally sane and re-
sponsibe for his actions; did he act in
seli-defense? If sane and clothed with a
knowledge of right and wrong, the Grim
inal Is held as a free moral agent to strict
responsibility for his crimes. and FORM
alive influences, differences of education,
natural gifts, etc, cannot be considered
by law.
If Mr.. Blaine murdered his coachman,
as Prof. Webster. of Harvard college, did
DIR. Parkman many years ago, ought not
Mr.. Blaine, if pronounced sane, to suffer
the legal penalty for murder? Most as
suredly. and if Mr.. Blaine's coachman
murders Mr.. Blaine ought he not, if
sane, TO walk the scaffold? Most GER
talnly; and yet the difference and distance
between the early advantages, the forma-
tive influences of heredi.y, education,
association, mental power, etc, of Blaine
aud his illiterate coachman are immense.
The law does not attempt to determine
whether Blaine could have been any bet
ter than his coachmau had he been born
and bred like his coachman; il reduces
both Blaine and his coachman down to a
common level of responsibility for crime,
based on the proof of sanity and moral
capacity to know right from wrong.
In no other way could the safety of
society he secured. punishment inflicted
and crime held in restraint. Ali other
considerations OF comparative intelligence,
riches or poverty, talents, friendly early
circumstances. etc, have to be discarded
The law does not judge you as God alone
can judge you; the law simply decides
whether you are guilty, and then says that
If you are medically and legally sane, SO
that YOU are responsible for your actions.
you must he punished in order that society
be protected. whether Blaine has muir
derej his coacaman or his coachman has
murdered Blaine. The law is no respecter
of persons. and no jury can be, without
being utterly false 10 the legal function of
a juror and to the oath with which he
assumes his duties.