WOMEN AND JURIES.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 509, 17 May 1909, Page 4

WOMEN AND JURIES.

To many people, no doubt, it may have appeared to be a very singular thing that tho evidence in the Hallett case was insufficient to secure the conviction of the accused. The main facts upon which the charge againet Miss Hallett was baaed wero not in dispute. It was not disputed that this young lady allowed people to believe her to be a person who she was not, and, in particular, allowed the gentleman concerned' in the case to understand that her situation and circumstances were very different from what they were'.in fact. To establish the fact that tho young lady practised deception, and that, in respect of the "loan" which was the foundation of tho prosecution, she made statements that were not true— to do this was'not sufficient to establish her guilt in the eyes of a jury on thecharge brought against her. The question whether there was any intent to defraud would bo the chief determining factor,' 1 and this is a point op which, as in many proficcutions under tho Act, it is difficult: to obtaw wet (wd final evidence. That

question was left to/ the jury, and the jury answered it in the negative. At least, we suppose that that was the way in which tho jury decided upon its ver- , diet. There are many: people; however, who, while entirely unwilling to protest againet the judgment of tho law, must feel that the lady was very fortunate. 1 The case, in fact, appears to us to illustrate the truth of tho often jested-about suscoptibility of the avorage juryman to beauty,: even indiscreet beauty, in distress. It is one of our Anglo-Saxon fictions that tho householder John Smith, who in his everyday life is an ordinary pian, with the ordinary man's prejudices and ignorance, and his own personal way pf considering. things, is transformed, upon" entering the jury-box, into a prete'rnaturally shrewd,; impartial and impereonal judge of the motives and merits of othor people. In most'cases the juryman strives very hard to become the abstraot assessor of human values that he ought to bo. If he is hyper-conscientious, ho may even act on the principle that;the wise conclusion to be drawn in tho case beforo him is exactly the opposite of the conclusion he would come to. if. he were out'of the jury-box and in his native street. But the oho common trait of jurymen appears to be an .unwillingness to/take theharsh view when- that view would mean the infliotion of punishment on a young and attractive woman, arid, at , the'sanio time, the doing of violence to some vague, code of chivalry of his own. The average, juryman will certainly refuse ,: to do violence to his conscience wheV the facts are all clear; he may be relied upon, too, to accept the major probability in doubt ful points in ordinary cases. But in cases against young women; especially when the case appears.to be a conflict between the.strong and the weak, he. is';, always glad to place the most favourable interpretation possible'.'on the debatable aspects of the situation. It is contrary to the spirit of justice, of course, ■ that a jury should bo moved by sentiment ;in any case that comes before it, but we cannot see any/practical method whereby sentimept. can'be locked out of the jury-, box. . It is a little surprising that the advocates.of the introduction of women into the various spheres of publio life and public duty have never put (forward the, claim to their right to act on juries. In. cases' where young and attractive' womon have to stand, it might be that tho ends of justice would be, better Berved by 'a jury of women than by a jury of the .other,sex. ; In.the meantimo, however, jye' must continue to trust to the honest intentions of the , average malo juryman. / -' ;'■.-: V : ■ ~1,. -. "'■'' ..; • 1 ■:,