The record-union., 1897-10-03
CRIMINAL LAW PROCEDURE
ELSEWHERE.

AS illustrative of the effect of the GER
tainty and celerity of punishment for
crime, we are cited the case of the
Mexican Police Inspector who permit
ted or ordered the killing of a prisoner.
the assailant of President Diaz. As
suming that he really did confess, the
Inspector knew that Notwithstanding
the fact that his act was applauded by
the whole body Of the Mexican republic
he would be brought to speedy trial,
would be convicted and swiftly executed
and preferring death by his own hand
he thus escaped the moose. There is no
other construction to be placed upon his
conduct. He was not insane. He had
yielded to an impulse and he knew that
he would suffer the penalty of the law.
Unluckily for this Mexican official,
whose patriotism outran his prudence,
he did not live under a system of Grim
inal procedure such as the people of the
United States maintain. Here he might
have entertained a hope of escape
through mercifuI sympathy, and at the
best could have been assured of a long
delay in trial and on appeal. and in the
end of possible pardon. Yet the Mex
lean criminal laws are not only not bet
ter than ours. but are in many respects
harsh, cruel and unjust, and procedure
in criminal cases there is often not as
sertive of the rights of the accused or of
the State
The fault we lay at our own doors is
in the machinery of application. This is
too slow moving, too complex and too
provocative of stays, appeals and con-
unuances Of various kinds and of null
uplicity Of means of avoidance. The
laws Of the most if not all of the United
States sufficiently define crimes and
provide for them penalties, and these as
rule sufficiently severe. 1t is in the un-
certainty and slowness of application
that ourasystem is at fault
It Is common among us to comment
approvfngly upon the swiftness with
which justice is administered in France.
But II we examine the French methods
they would be impossible, intolerable, in
such country as ours. The humane
instinct alone would make them inef-
fecttve here. With us the presumption
Of innocence is rightly in favor of one
accused, and the prosecution is properly
required to prove the guilt of the party
charged
How Is it in France? There to be
suspected Of crime is almost the equiv
alent of conviction The Judge of In
struction who orders arrests and before
whom the prisoner is first brought. pro-
ceeds with an inquisition in which the
accused Is made to testify against him
self II he is weak or ignorant If he
refuses to do so, his declination operates
againstAhim just the same. This maefs
trate is really relic of the middle ages
when inquisition and torture were twin.
In France where this inquisitor orders
an arrest the police pounces upon the
castle Of the accused, breaks and enters
into it, and seizes all his papers, except
ing none, and carries them off. In the
meanwhile the suspect is clapped into a.
ICELAND held insecret, and isnot even told
for what he is arrested. Within one dav
the prisoner is brought before this DOW
erful magistrate who may or may not
tell him why he is held. The hearing is
had rather to worm out of the prisoner
inculpatory expressions than for any
thing else.
The man is then sent to a new prison
and held until his case ripens in the es-
timation of the Judge of Instruction. In
this period he may or may not see coun-
sci, as the Judge chooses. His family
may communicate with him. but in the
presence of an officer and through a
grating. But he is not permitted to pre-
pare his defense unless he eonfesses, or
until after the Judge has acquainted
himself with the case and questioned
in his own way and without anyone to
object or except, and always from the
assumption of guilt.
Too often his methods terrorize the ac-
cused, and he makes admissions that are
contorted into confessions of guilt; or