The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-07-02
SENSATIONAL TRIALS.
should Attendance IN the Court Room
re Carefully Limited?

To THE EDITOR OF THE SUN-Sir:
Should or should not the general public
be admitted to murder trials or sensa-
tional law suits OF any kind. and does
not this privilege tend toward the d.
morallzation OF the people and OF the
law?
Such question should furnish food
for thought especially when we read In
the press OF "clamoring crowds" storming
the court room doors for admission to
trials of more or less prominence.
travesty or seeming travesty is being
made of the sacredness OF the law when
such trials are allowed to be made n sort
OF puppet show and where admission is
sometimes by special privilege or TO
ticket holders only"
Within tho last few years In particu-
lar the dcmoraliZing influence OF the
public murder trial, the sensational di-
vorce action or the breach of promise suit
has been shown. II Is echoed in the pub
lie press throughout the country to-day
In so far as accounts of such trials are
concerned.
The popular idea of the prominent trial
is In lengthy description of those
present as IL 1t were "A prize fight or a
bull fight or the dansant or a vaudeville
performance. The gowns worn by the
fashonably dressed women make up a
large part of the newspaper STORY"
Is the presence at such trials OF the
general public, the word In used in the
sense OF those who have no interest what
ever In the action, necessary To the
proper fulhlmcnt OF the letter and spirit
of the law?
This is a free country and every man
Is entitled to public hearing. Why
shouldn't the public he admitted, comes
the answer.
Yes. but the presence OF a rabble OF
disinterested sensational scandalmongers
as spectators at a trial OF law. requiring
the interposition OF the police to keep
order, Is not In any way necessary TO
the operation Of the law, nor does Il
guarantee a fairer trial.
\ Judge. a jury. witnesses. lawyers.
court officers and the like could work to-
gether more smoothly and bring action TO
a fitting close more expeditiously without
the subtle injurious air OF excitement that
pervades court room thronged with
spectators.
Then too the psychological effect pro-
duced upon jury by crowd bent upon
the conviction or acquittal OF one per-
son is to be reckoned with.
The remarks or statements made by
witnesses are Intended primarily for the
ears OF the Judge. jury and court ON
cials and newspaper representatives.
All trials are legitimate news for the
papers and no effort should he made to
suppress news In this way in fact any
such attempt would meet most assuredly
with failure.
Conceive a court room containing only
those persons necessary to the carrying
out OF the case In hand. the two oppos-
Ing lawyers arguing their respective
causes. calling witnesses, cross-eNamining
and all the details that go to make up
the modern operation Of legal machinery.
Conceive on the other hand the scene
with the added setting OF "A public camor-
Ing for admission at the doors and being
held IN check by the police: the witness
chair Illuminated by a spotlight and the
audience hreathless with excitement.
Then consider whether or not it has
tendency toward the dignity with which
the law should be upheld.
Perhaps these statements and questions
may be taken as altogether too radical.
Perhaps not. But at any rate Il Is safe
To assume that such scenes are not UNI
common.
II is always the white slave cases. d.
vorceS OF prominent people OF wealth
murders OF more than ordinary human
interest and the like that attract.
We talk OF a censorship for moving
pictures which eliminates the undesirable
film from public exhibition. Could not
the same principle he applied in the mat
ter OF allowing the public to be present at
trials at law" Surely some such course
Of action would tend not only to a greater
dignity for the law. but also TO "A higher
grade Of moral conduct and thinking
among people at large.
The consideration Of such subject
should open up new avenues of thought,
should have "A stirring influence 10 better
morality and. taken altogether. Il Is not
50 petty subject or so lnconsequential
as one nigh; at first suppose. Il. S. 3.
New York, July l.