The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-02-06
Problem of the Criminal
AS Judge Delehanty Sees 1t

committed to them. Tho apn.....
courts have shown in recent YEAR,
distinct intention 10 disregard ,.cb,,
cality and to determine annea,,
criminal cases with an cye so,.,.
the merit Of the case. The .r,a, &c.,
tice should be careful to ins,il int, a..
minds of petty jurors their so,...
duty to- protect the general publio !.
the proper performance Of their ,,,,
tons as triers of the fact.
Miscarriage OF Justice by res,o =.
mistakes Of petty jurics may h. ,r,..
much less common II trial Judge, vr
strictly control the conduct Of N. A..
and see TO II that the trial 4. 4, o.
a search for the truth in the ca,.
not n contest of wits.
II in the public mind which IT,.
fected by petty iurlesD there Il,
stillcd a feeling OF confidence T., 81,
court the remedy for the d!Nicu,.v i.
found. for II Is rare that in cr,r,,,
cases the trained intelligence n, -,
trial Judge fails to ascertain whore ~.
truth lies.
In the search for truth in a cas-. -,
layman is frequently puzzled nv =.
fact that Court and counsel are y
ligiously silent about the defondan,
personal knowledge Of the case. 7.
him II is obvious that the dcfends,
probably knows all ahou, the matt.
and yet he sees cases tried whe,s
the defendant does not taA the s,ss
and he is puzzled to know Why uo,hlu,
is said about II.
1t Is questionable whether IN. -t.
that forbids comment on a de.erda-,
failure to take the stand has any 70.
o now for existence. The rule w.,
made at a time when the desenda,
could not take the stand and COZ
not testify, and hence he obvior.
could not be criticised for his failure =,
do so.
The same ou.cry il made tod,
against the removal Of this rcstric,t.
on the prosecution as was raised on.
years ago. when It was proposed to q
the defendant take the stand. T.
same Bourbon type NJ mind charac'r
lied the ban in the 'i0s and sos VIZ
the subject was discussed Of ps-
ting the defendant to testify for hin
self. and yet to-day no one would ,h'-.
of dcpriving the defendant the Ugh, p,
testify.
Having given him the tight 20 ter
he certainly ought not to have Il.
right and the exceptional privilege .
refusing to testify W.th0u, fear o. q
consequence. SO long rs the deal
public justice IL TO ascertain the tn.
and punish crime. there seems 20 he 7
reason for shutting the gate 70 o.
broad avenue OF Information; tNa.
the defendants own knowledge 0. (,
case.
The objection is made ,ha. ma 4
fondaut ought not be c"mpcllei 20 (!
cr.minatc himself. To abolish b
r.ght to remain silent without g.
i"ism Is no, 20 compel HIM 10 hc aT'
ness, hu' merely compcls HIM ~ cuOg
between telling what he lunNs %. =
Case and suffering the same udvs'
criticism which attaches 80 every v
ness in the case who ConCeals fncr
hf 80 49,. ~ f. e -. .
garded as a game, the defendant mir
assert that the hand!Caps are not 81
hciCutly heavy in his favor But :
public is coming more AID more
disregard the "sporting' idea q ira
and will, | believe, welcome q
change OF procedure which maxi"
gal process more certain.
To-day there are active IN .hs
m!nistratlon Of tho Law agencies VIZ
were unknown to the earlier pr
Users. and which guarantee a. nss'
as may be done, that each 4,'eHts
viii have a fair opportunity %
heard and present his side % ~. co
With a better and moro 81 In:
ministration Of tho Law by { ties
juries, working IN CoE.Ia .'.a v
the social agencies dealing with pot
tial and actual offenders. ,.r admin
tratIon Of the criminal 'tW sAo
show marked Improvement.
The work Of rc,la.m.r- a"'"l'
Tenders is not 50 important ts 'he ?
yentive work which j. NIX $50 y