WHY LYNCHINGS OCCUR IN AMERICA.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1161, 30 May 1884, Page 4

WHY LYNCHINGS OCCUR IN AMERICA.

The riot and bloodshed at Cincinnati are simply the results of the outrageous verdict rendered by the jury in the Berner murder case The crime for which Berner was tried was peculiarly atrocious, and his guilt was exceptionally clear. It was a brutal murder, deliberately committed by th ■ prisoner and another man for the Sole purpose of robbery. Their victim was their employer, who was clubbed to death in a stable and then robbed oi a roll dt bills which he had in his pocket, amounting to 2 45d01, which was divided between the murderers The facts ascertained left no room for doubt as to the guilt of Berner. Indeed, he confessed the crime On the trial both the evidence and the law were overwhelming against him. There seemed to be no escape from convicrion of minder in the fitst degree. It was generally believed that there was no alternative but a verdict of raurde- or an acquittal, and the latter was deemed wholly out of the question. The jury, however, found the prisoner guilt/ simply of manslaughter. This unexpected and unwarranted verdict was characterised as “an outrage” by the J edge, and was denounced still more emphatically by the spectators in Court. Is was universally condemned by Aie Press, and aroused a piipnl lar indignation which first broke forth in threats to moo the jury next found expression in a vast public meeting, and finally led to riot and bloodshed This outbreak in Cincinnati is not a matter of merely local concern. It sorings from a cause of general operation. It is a consequence of a flagrant miscarriage of justice; and bah the cause and its effect are growing common throughout the country to an ex tent that may well cause alai m and arrest attention. The failure to bring murderers to punishment has become so general and so gross as to call in question the efficacy of our criminal administration and to sound a warning to the whole nation. It is a startling fact that escape of murderers from the penalty of the law is the rule and con v.ction the exception. A writer in the current number of the Century has collected statistics showing that more than 1,500 murders were committed in the United Slates last year, while the number of legal executions was only ninety nine One year affords but an approximative ratio of hangings to murders. But

the same writer reaches the general 1 conclusion that the number of yearly ff'-iiiuidors in the country is 1,300 or ■ 1,400, and the number of executions '< kss than 100. In other words, out • of- every fourteen murderers only one ■' sitßers the extreme penalty of- the law and thirteen escape the gallows. Arno ther most significant fact reported by ■ ihe ! same authority is that in 1883 the lynehings in the United States outnumbered the legal executions by 25 per cent —there i eing 125 of the former and nmty-nine of the latter We recently gave the figures show ing that during a period of little more than twenty years—from IS6O to 1882—170 persons were tried in Massachusetts for murder in the first degree. Of this number only twentynine were convicted and only sixteen hanged. In Connecticut during a period of thirty years—from 1850 to -1880—of the ninety-seven prisoners ' tried for murder in the first degree only thirteen were convicted of that crime, and not more than seven were executed. There were 185 homicides in New York city during the four years ending with 1877, or an average ■of nearly on« a week. During the same period there were four executions or just one a year. The number of persons tried for minder in the first degreeinthe city averages abuiittwenty a year ; the number hanged does not average more than two or three. These are startling facts, which show an alarming defect in our crimnal system, and suggest the inqui-y whether our laws for the punishment of murderers and the prevention of murder are not made or administrated in behalf ■of crinmals rather than in the interest ■of society. There is no question that these laws are far more favorable to the prisoner than to the people. It is much easier for the defence to escape than it is for the prosecution to secure conviction. In nine cases out of ten the jury,as amply proved by experience,' is simplv a body organised in the interest of criminals At every stage, from the summoning of the jurors to the rendering of the verdict, the prisoner has advantages and opportunities from which the State is cut off. In the Cincinnati trial, for instance, the do' fence has five times as many premptory challenges as the prosecution,and while the prosecutor stood alone during the trial five of the best crimnal lawyers at the Bar appeared for the prisoner. • 'ases are notoriously common in which the jurors deliberately and willfully side with the prisoner out of sympathy ■wi'h him or through indifference to the claims of society and acquit him against the evidence and in violation of their oaths. The outrageous acquittal of Dukes, the surprising verdict of the Cincinnati jury in the Berner case, and the flagrant results of other recenti criminal trials can be explained only on th s theory. 1 Lynch law and mob rule are always to be condemned. There was a time when these occurrences were chiefly confined to frontier regions. But they are now breaking out in more law-abiding communities. Notable instances of this are the sequel of the

Tlnkcs uccqnittal in Pcnsyl vania and t.lie consequence- of the Burner verdict iu (Jincimmti 'i he fine iiua.il riot is not to be defended or excused, but it is a wai'i ino, and should it have a .wholesome effect on the shameful jury abuses throughout the coumry it will be tr ntleast on good truic.—‘New York Herald.’