The record-union., 1895-07-06
CAN WE HAVE TRAINED JURIEsa 2

CAN WE HAVE TRAINED JURIEsa
Why should we not have trained juries?
Is it safe method in doing justice to call
upon men to pass upon difficult questions,
some of them involving life and death,
or the disposition of much property, or
the maintenance OF human rights. who
have not been trained by habit or study
to CLOSE thinking and long continued
mental application?
Suppose murder trial to be on, and
the jury selected. In nine cases out of
ten the jurors are men who have thought
along narrow lines of small business, are
SO little readers that they have had no
knowledge of the case, so indolent In
mind, or at least go Indifferent to daily
events, that they have formed no opinion
concerning noted cases that have stirred
public thought.
In most instances these jurors are men
accustomed to exercise, much in open air,
and to an active. hsrd-working life. Con-
fined for days, 1t may be for weeks, in
courtroom, listening to the debate of in
volved questions, and to conflicting state
ments, what right have we to expect from
them full comprehension of the issues, or
what right have we to look to such juries
for that close attention and that analysis
of the testimony which will conserve the
ends ofjustice?
These reflections are suggested by al
interesting article In the Popular Science
Monthly by DR.. Crothers, who has made a
study Of the question from the standpoint
of physician. His conclusion is that in
most cases our juries. being unframed
to the thought requisite to application,
and to analysis. ana being taken sud-
denly out of their usual habits, are not in
q mental or physical condition to handle
the matter committed to them. There is
30 much of truth in this that the question
arises why should we not have trained
juries-men for jurors who are accus-
toned, for one thing, to confinement, who
do not grow weary under sustained men
tai strain. whose mentality has had such
training that 1t is stimulated by exercise
and analysis; men who read. study,
probe, seek for motives and are praciiced
in the art of discovering the truth?
DIR. Crothers points to the whimsicality
of many verdicts, the surprise that jury
conclusions often awaken, the capricious
character of many jury actions and YER
diets, in support of his claim that our sys-
tenn tends to weakness of mind in the
juror. The motive and intent of the
average juror is not assaiied but his sur
roundings, his mental state and his
physical condition all 60 to support the
claim that the average jury is imoompe-
tent to arrive at conclusions that will
approximate the truth and human Justice
One instance is given that will serve to
illustrate phase of the question. In
q celebrated case in New England twelve
men were selected from among 100 to try
the cause, which trial lasted ten days.
Eight of these men were farmers accus-
toned to outdoor life, vigorous physical
and little mental exercise. early bed and
early rising, plain food and certain hours
were their rules. One other juror was a
blacksmith, two were mechanics. one a
horse trader, one a retired farmer, and
one man with no calling or employment.
For ten days they sat in the box, their
habits when out of it regulated differ
emily from the usual, and not one of
them was a man to whom q private oiti-
zen would have submitted the DISPOSE
ton of any business equally important
as that of the case in hand. "Was Ii any
wonder that such jury disagreed" asks
the doctor.
Another case which he investigated
was that of q juror who was more than
usually Intelligent. and was a fair man.
He was carpenter. He kept dairy Of
his Impressions and experiences. The
first day he was impressed with the mag
nitude OF the case. and did not sleep well
that night, for he had to occupy the room
with three other men, and the air was
bad. The second day he remembered all
the witnesses said, bur was weary with
the effort. He went TO bed early, but
was disturbed By other jurors. The third