The Sun. — 1858-07-12 (London, England)

APPEALS IN CRIMINAL CASES.  It is repr.sented that juries would estimate their responsibility more lightly if they delib!rited with the knowLidge that their decision was not necessar ly conclusive. We may ask, in reply, whether this is found to be the case in cit it actions—whether there is the least reason to suppose that jurors indulge themselves in greaer lax ty 61 dealing with questions of property because they know that the party against whom they decide may carry his case to the highest court in the laud ? In one class of cases it is probably true that juries would, under the proposed system, boar their responsibilities with greater e se to themselves, and by their so doing the • interests of substantial jus•ice would be greatly adyawed. It notoriously happens not infrequently in trials for murder that twelve jurymen will acquit a prisoner of whose guilt they cannot bs supposed to entertain any reasonable doubt, because they shrink f.ona sending a fellow-creature to death while they fancy there is a possibility of error. From such compunctious weakness they are clearly much more lik-ly to be free if they can be assured that any mistaken deductions which they may draw from the evidence are liable to be revised by another tribunal, which will also have the power of taking into consideraion any facts which may have been unknown at the time when they were called upon to pronounce their verdict. In this way the effect of a recognised mode of appeal would, probably, have been to prevent the escape of some of the unconvicted murderers who, there can be no doubt, are now walk- . ing abroad in society as the result of certain abortive proceedings which have attracted a large share of attention during the last two or three years. By working in a somewhat analogous way on the mind of the Minister intrusted with this department, the system would also save us occasionally from witnessing the commutation of a capital st ntence in case's where public opinion does not go with the leniency of the Crown. As the law stands, however heinous may be the crime asc ibed to any convict on whose behalf an effort is made, the Secretary of State, if some slight misgiving as to the question of actual guilt be awakened in his breast, has no resource but to reduce the punishment. We need only glance at the cases of Clestina Somers and of the Irish artist who murdered his wife on the see-coast near Dublin to illustrate the practical absurdities in ,which we are involved by the unjust test to which we expose the natural weakness of the administrators of the law. Were it possible for every conviction to be exhaustively investigated before it came into the hands of the Crown we should have fewer instances of persons confined in Her Majesty's gaols who unquestionably ought to be hanged if they are guilty ; while, if they are innocent, they should as certainly be free. The establishment of a regular method of appeal on matters of fact would thus tend to “oduce consistency in the administration of the law as well as to impart additional certainty to conviction. It is fully in accordance with the humane spirit in which our criminal code has been reformed during the last 30 years. By common consent the consideration of the subject has been postponed until next session, but the utility and importance of the desired change may be considered to be established.—Manchtste Guardian.