The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1933-12-30
SENSIBLE WAY OUT

the current controversy over lynching and
the criminal law does not help to bring
about one greatly needed reform in our sys-
tenn OF convicting criminals, we shall have
missed great educational opportunity
If we give society reasonable assurance that
no man guilty Of a major crime will be turned
free in the courtroom we shall do more to
undermine the lynching habit than all the
protests of noble men and women can accom-
plish in generations.
The jury trial is not merely &. very irnper-
feet device for ascertaining guilt 1t literally
is about the worst procedure which civilized
beings could employ. To concede that it is
better than torture, trial by battle, and other
crude methods which it superseded in the
Middle Ages certainly is no ground for retain
ing it in the twentieth century. To ride in an
oXcart down Park avenue would be no more
absurd or out-of-period than our practice of
bringing accused men before juries of twelve
good men and true.
Juries are made up of unframed men, i'm
paneled at random Those most likely to rem
der intelligent amateur service automatically
are exempted because of professional duties
The less intelligent men who remain then are
subjected to a rigorous selective process which
leaves on the jury, in many important murder
cases, only the more colorless of the illiterates
who have been summoned for juror service
Those intelligent or honest enough to ad-
NIT that they have read and formed an opin-
ion on the case must be dismissed. If the
opposing attorneys are matched about equally
in wit and intelligence, they will accept for
jury service only those vino appear unlikely to
be damaging to the prospects of either the
district attorney or the attorney for the de-
Tense.
At the time of one of the more notorious
murder trials in New York City the New York
Times published large picture of the Jury. At
the very same period the comic sections of
some New York newspapers were publishing
the Hkenesses of the jurymen summoned to
ascertain the guilt of Andy Gump 1t is a lit
eral fact that the Gunp jury made a better
impression upon the unbiased observer
Such is the material to whom the confused
difficult and technical facts are submitted in
the courtroom with the hope of ascertaining
a verdict in harmony with truth and Justice.
1t would be very difficult, indeed for an
assemblage of men to render an accurate YER
dict even if they could get the facts But the
rules of legal evidence which stand almost
completely at variance with the laws of SCI
entific evidence, do not permit clear and i'm
partial presentation of the facts Their appIi
cation leads, more often than not, to the
obscuring of the facts
The judge often adds his part to the dis
tortion of the picture by rulings and comments
based upon personal bias for or against the
defendant or the lawyers involved in the case.
Then the verdict, reached after the Jury has
retired is as likely to be affected by the per-
sonalities on the jury as it is by the facts to
which the jury has happened to listen.
If we desire to ascertain guilt we must have
permanent committee of experts who have
been trained long and vigorously to sift and
weigh evidence. 1t would be difficult enough
for such an examining committee to ascertain
the facts in the average murder trial Such a
committee would not be 100 per cent perfect,
but it would be about 100 per cent better than
the typical jury. We would know that all
which is humanity possible is being done to as
certain the facts and to convict the guilty.
Once society had confidence in this matter,
there would be little demand for lynching and
little defense for lynching party when one
rarely occurred.