Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1908-06-02
TRIAL BY JURY.
Ten Reasons For Abolition of Trial by
Jury In Criminal Cases.

! Jury In Criminal Cases.
Convinced by thirty-five years ex-
perience at the bar that juries are
slowly losing respect for state courts
as we'll as for law and are becoming
more and more aggressive in placing
their own Interpretation on the law
and attending less and less to the
rulings of the court and his charge
defining the law of the case, Mr.. Hal
w. Greer in the American Law Re-
view for March-April sums up his OBJ
jections to the jury system in criminal
cases thus:
First. They do not apply the exact
definition of crimes given in the
courts charge because they do not
understand them nor in truth do they
care to understand them. They be-
lieve their own ideas are supreme and
that they have the right to be gov
erned by the same.
Second. They read into the law
their own emotions, sympathies and
feelings, giving it their own interpre-
tation putting themselves in the
place of the defendant" a position
never contemplated by the law or
good morals.
Third. Sometimes juries are cor
rupted through fear. or worse mo-
tives, into returning verdicts in de
fiance Of law.
Fourth. Prejudice figures largely
in verdicts. tramp or pauper Is
denied the benefit of the doubt" but
well to-do citizen has it stretched to
most unreasonable lengths in his IA
vor
Fifth. The method Of selecting the
juries is childish and puerile, enabling
one who has been 'infiuenced' to an
| swer all questions satisfactorily, and
operating against the conscientious
talesman who admits he has formed
an opinion. The latter, the writer
says, should no more be Objectionable
therefor than the trial judge himself.
Sixth. The whole effort Of defend
ants counsel is to keep conscientious
men out Of the box, whose feelings,
or sentiments cannot be appealed to.
Seventh. The law recognizes the
fact that a jury can be improperly
| influenced, in that it locks up juries
in felony cases.
Eighth. Counsel for defendant
make statements and arguments(D
appealing to the passions and preju-
dices of the jurors, to violate directly
their oaths and acquit the defendant,
which they would not dare to make
TO the trial by judge.
Ninth. AS the law is an exact sci
ence intended to prevent crime by
fairly, justly, and reasonable punish
| ing those guilty Of infraction, there
can be no reason for a jury on the
| theory that it will be more merciful
than judges learned in the law, and
capable of deliberate and judicious
analysis and application Of facts.
Tenth. The strongest reason against
the system is that instead of every Of
fense being accurately defined and
punished, juries are continually add
ing to the definitions and destroying
the certainty Of punishment. If 1t
were known to be a fact that every
crime would be punished according to
it's definition, there can be no doubt
Of the salutary effect. 1t Is the uncer-
tainty of the jury verdict that breeds
criminal desire and anarchy.
In civil cases, says he, juries are
taken to avoid the law. Personal
injury" suits afford the most striking
illustration. Juries pay no attention
to the law, the assumption Of risk, or
the contributory negligence of the
plaintiff, but decide the case plainly
on a mistaken sympathy against the
defendant The fact that the plaintiff
is poor and the defendant is rich Is
sufficient, and the jurors relieve their
consciences by assuring one another
that a higher court will correct their
mistake-if any. Appellate courts
complacently hold themselves 'bound
by the facts thus found by the jury
and the law goes on changing from
system to doubt, and from doubt to
hopeless confusion and conscienceless
anarchy.