The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-11-26
CRIMINAL APPEALS.


people 10 ancient customs Is well
known, particularly TO attorneys. 1t
viii, therefore. be OF interest 10 OBJ
serve the result OF the effort now being
made to provide for a court OF criminal
appeal. Al the same time. ii Is rather
complimentary To United States 1uris-
prudence 10 have country whose COM
mon Law is the basis OF 30 much OF the
law OF other parts Of the English
speaking world, at last graft upon
it's system conspicuous feature
OF ours. Tne great objection TO the
existence OF a court OF appeal empow-
cred 10 reverse conviction OF facts. rs
stated by Lord Ludlow, is because II
Introduces an element of uncertainty
IN the administration OF the criminal
Law highly detrimental to the deterrent
effect OF punishment II will relax.
too, he thinks, the sense Of stern re-
sponsibiiity now so keenly recognized
by the juries, proceeding in his judg-
ment from the feeling that their YER
diet Ii final, and irreyersible. Whether
that Ia the cause or not. there can he
no doubt that this country does not
present an commendable record as 1t
might Of the advantages of the right Of
appeal secured TO those accused OF
crime.
The opposition 10 the bill will prob
ably be overcome by the consideration
urged In its favor, the best OF which is
that In which the general principle Is
stated. namely, that upon judgments
given In our ordinary courts Of justice
the law doth admit and allow writs Of
error to be brought without any touch
of dishonor to the judges" for the rea-
son, as Lord Campbell has said, that
the spirit OF our Jurisprudence sup
poses that judges are fallible, and
anxiously provides the means OF cor
recting their mistakes"
There 10 no doubt that the absence
OF right Of appea, might work great
hardship. but 1t is equally true that
the deprivation Of the state OF the right
of appeal In the case Of acquittal re-
suits in as frequent miscarriage of
justice. The strong point made in
favor of the proposed change Is that
there Is liable to be injustice done
where an offender Is tried before sim
gle Judge and jury whose errors are
not renewable by an appellate court.
1t is probably within the knowledge of
very many who know nothing of the
principles OF law that 1t Is very fire.
.quent miscarriage OF justice. under the
rule which prevailed both at common
law and now prevails in modern prac-
tice, that there is no appeal from ac-
quittal.
The motive for this. of course. is a
good one. 1t is presumed that no jury
of twelve men viii acquit one against
whom there Is reasonable proof Of
guilt. II juries we're rs conscientious
as Lord Ludlow gives them credit for
being, and experienced that sense of
responsibility which he attributes to
them, there would not be SO many men
caught red-handed In homicide walk
ont from the courts with .less punish
ment than would be accorded one who
merely struck blow at another in
simple assault.
We may feel gratified at the imita-
ton Of our system by Great Britain,
but we have the consciousness that
there is something lacking In the ap-
piication OF presumptively excellent
provisions for the administration of
strict justice.