Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1892-12-23
AN INTERESTING PAPER
BY q Well Known New Haven Attt
neY-Brltlah Police Courts.

BY a Well Known New Haven Attor- |
ney-British Police Courts. |
Attorney George P. Ingersoll, of the law
firm of Tyler, Ingersou & Moran of this |
city, occupied a portion Of his very pleas
ant stay in old England last summer in
making special study of the methods and
modes Of procedure pursued in the police
courts of London. Since his return,
among other productions from his pen Is
valuable paper which has just appeared in
the Yale Law School Journal. Some feat
ures of the paper are herewith given:
Mr.. Ingerson speaks of the length of
time occupied at trial in the following
way. Y fsa.nrs Of q london no,,os oonrt
trial that astonishss an American almost
more than anything else is the length of
time that is given to each case. Even an
ordinary "drunk and disorderly" charge
(they never arrest for simple drunkenness),
which would be disposed of in one of our
police courts in from three to five minutes.
takes often from fifteen minutes to half an
hour to dispose of there. The magistrate
asks the prisoner every conceivable ques-
ton bearing on the case, seemingly 10th to
convict If he can avoid It,"
Another interesting and eommendable
characteristic of London police court trials
is the fact that prisoners record of pre-
vious convictions Is not read until after he
has been found guilty.
'In each case, immediately after the
court has reached the conclusion that the
prisoner is guilty, jailer standing at the
other end of the court room reads the pris-
oner's record, If he has had any previous
convictions, and then the court inf1iots the
sentence. And note well, the record is not
in the possession of the court, suppose
for fear he might refer to it before arriving
at the question of guilt of the prisoner,
and is never read until the court has
reached conclusion as to the guilt of the
prisoner of the offense for which he is on
trial"
Mr. Ingersoll characterizes the average
English sentence as entirely too severe. He
thinks as rule they exercise great care in
| arriving at conclusions of guilt but that
| the magistrates are too narrow minded to
regulate their sentences. He criticises
| their sentences as follows: "As to SEN
fences, they would average more severe
| than with us. They impress an American
| as too severe. While the magistrates seem
loath to convict and apparently give the
prisoners the benefit of every reasonable
doubt, when guilt is once clearly estab-
/ llSQSQ the sentences are IOI COMPARATIVELY
long periods and the fines high. When an
| English magistrate has made up his mind
that prisoner is guilty the quality of
mercy rarely enters into his mind. His
mind is not broad enough to temper Justice
with mercy. It ia usually heavy penalty
| or nothing. writer has said sthe British
are great on Furnishing the guilty. That
| is indeed true. For even trivial oHenses
the punishment is astonishingly severe and
the way of the transgressor is hard"
His general impression of this system of
administering the criminal laws Is favor
able. He sums up many of the character
istics of interest as follows:
GAS system the method of administer
ing the criminal laws in London oommends
itself to us in many particulars. The sub
stantial appearance of their court build
ipgs and court rooms, the solemnity and
dignity with which all legal proceedings
are conducted, the length of time given to
the trial of even the most trivial
offenses, the searching CONGRATULATIONS,
the amount Of confederation and proof
required of the government to sustain q
conviction, the explanation to each pris-
oner under the law, not allowing prison
er's record to be read until after convic-
ton, and plain logical statement of the
reasons for finding guilt proven, are safe
guards of justice and characteristics calcu-
lated to inspire even the lowest and most
degraded of human society with deep
reverence for the majesty of law and the
sacredness of individual liberty"