The Birmingham age-herald., 1912-03-24

average in Alabama in 1907-190S would ex- ceed 15 to every 100000 population, and the homicides in Alabama constitute about one-ninth of the whole number reported in the registration area of the United States.
 We cannot attribute this high rate of murder to racial difference. to illiteracy. or to density of population. We must seek the cause for this condition and apply the remedy. Popular government fin Alabama is a failure unless human life can be made as sure in this state as in any of our sister states. We would not be content until it is as secure here as 1t Is in the best governed states of the union, or the old world.
 Have Sufficient Courts
 We have sufficient courts to inforce the law. We have able prosecuting off, ciers. Is it the fault of our people? We have as high type of civilization as can be found in other states. The mass of our people are moral, itelligent and law abiding. We have a code of criminal laws that embrces almost every conceiv- able crime. The fault then must be in the enforcement of the law. We cannot escape this conclusion. Almost every is- sue of the daily press contains gruesome details of another case to be added to the long calendar of homicides In Ala bama. The deadly revolver is never idle, and scarcely a day passes that human blood Is not shed. We know then that this appalling record of death from viol- ence exists: that it saps our moral and | material interests and retards our devel- opment and progress.
 l We know that crime is not sufficiently punished. The record of convictions and
 punishment Is infinitesimal compared to | la,- .,ft xxrIa< ,l,
 ed with homicides. We know these facts.
 It is our duty to find and apply the
 remedy.
 l "In our zeal duty to protect the &C., cused and to secure every person charged
 with crime a fair and impartial trial,
 have we not also allowed mercy to tenn
 per justice to such an extent as to cause
 us to fail in our solemn duty to protect
 society? If, at any former period in the history of our criminal laws, there was
 A tendency to harsh and cruel punish ment. or to unjust convictions, such con ditions cannot be claimed to exist now. On the contrary, we know that by in- tricate pleadings and motions, by delays and special favors, by repeated reversals from appellate courts and upon technical and oftentimes insignificant rulings on the admission of testimony-by the fav- ors we extend to those charged with crime in the selection of jurors-we have | rather sought to make our courts places of refuge for the criminal who has ruth | lessly and fagranty inflicted injury or death upon the innocent or relpless Why Favor Defendant
 "Why should the defendant be allowed Il more challenges than Is accorded the state? Why should the person accused
 be allowed more opportunities for es- cape from the consequences of crime [ than the state is allowed to secure the conviction of the guilty? Can such 2
 preference be- sustained by argument ol
 justified by reason? There are too many
 reyersals for technical errors. This i' ] one of the fundamental defects in oui I system of criminal laws.
 "In paper read at the last meeting O. the Alabama State Bar Association b, , a distinguished prosecuting officer in on' . of the districts of the state I find tht : following statement.
 i "I have examined about 75 murder cas
 es that found their way to the suprem, , court (reported in random volumes 10 !. to 1eO of the Alabama Reports). Nor than half of these cases were reversed and not single one of them on an, matter that went to the merits of tn,
 cases; and> very few of them upon an,