Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-07-15
REGARDING CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE

ent superfluity Of commissions IN tnls
country the personnel Of the Ma
tional Crime Commission seems TO
warrant the conclusion that 1t should
not be classed among things super
fuous. Among those who have been
working together on this problem
are an ex-attorney general and Gov
ernor, Judson Harmon, Dean Pound
of the Harvard Law School, Dean
yviemore Of the Northwestern Uni
versity Law School an ex-attorney
general. U. S. Webb, under whose
administration a reform code was es-
tablished in California, former
Judge of the Minnesota supreme
court and chairman Of the section OF
criminal law, American Bar Asso-
citation, and others Of like calibre and
experience. From these is to be ex-
pected something practical and mer.
tting attention.
The commission, as stated by its
chairman, Chancellor Herbert S.
Hadley of Washington University, ST.
Louis, sought to accomplish the
largest possible measure Of correc-
ton of the faults Of existing codes Of
criminal procedure that can reason
ably he expected considering the
present attitude of the public towards
such questions"
If, as they claim, the changes they
recommend will make the trial of q
game or contest Of skill. cunning and
endurance between opposing lawyers"
and more of judicial investigation
under the trained and impartial d.
rection Of the judge to ascertain the
truth" those changes should be pray
erfulIy considered and adopted with
out delay.
Two of the important changes, Civ
ing the Judge the right to comment
on defendants failure to testify.
also to comment on the evidence, are
already provided for in a very linn
tied number of states.
Judged from a practical or, theo-
retical standpoint 1t is difficult to
understand" says Chairman Hadley,
"why there should not be provided
for every jury trial, disinterested
expert authority to advise and assist
the jury in dealing with the facts as
well as the law. In the absence of
such on authority the jurors look to
the lawyers for advice and direction
and the result is that a trial be-
comes a contest between opposing
counsel, in which the ablest lawyer
usually wins. The argument usually
offered against this reform is that il
might lead to official oppression and
injustice. Why should we, the great
est self governing nation in the world
be more concerned over the fear of
Official oppression and injustice than
any other people? Why should we
be more solicitous than any other
nation as to devising privileges
for those accused of crime, which
do not obtain in the system of other
countries? In short, why in the pro-
eecution of offenders against our laws
should we maintain provisions In
criminal procedure that are opposed
to the judgment of the past, present
expert authority and the rest of the
world?"
He proceeds to explain why self
interest impels some lawyers to
favor the maintenance of existing
procedure under which 90 per cent of
those committing major crime in this
country are not apprehended and
punished and rs per cent OF those
apprehended and prosecuted for ma
aor crimes escape the minimum pun
ishment provided by law. Such con-
demnation from one capable of speak
ing adyisedly. corroborated as 1t is
by the experience Of most of those
who read the news. warrants an up-
rising to demand change. And
while not assuming to be competent
to determine what that change should
should be, we best look to those who
recognize the menacing injustice of
present procedure, have the courage
to declare against 1t and have repu-
tation for legal wisdom and follow.
their advice rather than that of those
who are acquiescing and profitinS
from the present procedure. This
country has stood about all the
s'monkeying' with criminal law that
Ut may endure If 1t would retain its
self-respect.