The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-06-07
AN INADEQUATE SYSTEM.

There will never be a cessation OF the
cutlery against the absurdities of our GRIM
inal jury system until its imperfections
have been eliminated. Like many other
things which we have borrowed from Eng
land instead of having the originality and
independence to create standards better
suited to our needs, this feature OF the
English common law is so absurd in its ap-
plioation here as it would be ridiculous in
the criminal procedure Of the Continental
nations. The fact that the English law re-
quires unanimous verdict of twelve Jury
men to convict means nothing more than
that the law seems to suit Englishmen
and yet in all the things that go to make
up the National life of America there is
hardly country of Europe to which our
National temperament is not more closely
allied than to that of Great Britain. Had
it not been for series of peculiar acct
dents, including our partial descent from
the British, the heritage of the English
language and OF the written laws of Eng
land. nearer geographical contact and
certain business relations, the salient tenn
peramental differences between Americans
and the English would have made them
natural enemies.
The American criminal jury system is
one of series of absurdities which operate
to shield the criminal, discredit the courts,
encourage crime and make lynch law the
final resort of justice. Equally as absurd
is that grotesque fiction of the common
law that the accused is deemed innocent
till his guilt is proved. In these two
absurdities lie the beginning of the made
quacy of our criminal courts.
If the Federal Government should SET
the example of reform, the individual
States would quickly follow the lead. In
the June number of the american Maodsine
Of Civics Horace T. Cutter calls attention
to and gives the history of a bill intro
duced by Senator Perkins of California in
the United States Senate in August, 1894
1t provided that in civil actions and eases
OF misdemeanor, under the Federal laws
the jury may consist of twelve, or any less
number upon which the parties NAV
agree, but that in felony cases there must
be twelve jurymen; "that in civil actions
three-fourths of the jury, and in criminal
cases tive-sixths thereof may render a yer.
dict but in criminal cases below felony
jury may be waived by consent of both
parties, and in civil actions by consent OF
the parties in the manner prescribed by
law.
As Mr.. Cutter very truthfully declares,
the civil jury system of California provid.
ing for verdict by nine of the twelve has
proved most successful and satisfactory.
Even verdict of ten out of twelve in
criminal cases, as proposed by Senator
Perkins, while giving a defendant in a
criminal action an advantage not enjoyed
by the defendant in civil case, would be
great improvement on the present plan,
In country whose whole system of gov
eminent is based on the will of the major.
ity we find the requisite of a unanimous
verdict in criminal cases gross anachro-
nism. Even the Supreme Court of the
United States. deciding as it does questions
which may affect the vital welfare of the
| whole Nation, is permitted to render 8
simple majority verdict. and that is very
much looser than a five-sixth verdict by 8
jury. Mr.. Cutter rightly declares that
| there is nothing in the Federal constitu.
| ton requiring unanimous verdict, anG
! he leaves the clear inference that such 6
verdict is contrary not only to the prinei
Piles upon which our Government i:
founded but also ignores a universe
knowledge of the fact that unanimous con
currence is foreign to the mental processe!
| of our race.
| We are to hope, therefore, that Senator
Perkins bill, which was referred to tn,
Judiciary Committee, will be revived a
| the next session of Congress.