TRIAL BY JURY.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2276, 23 August 1870, Page 2

TRIAL BY JURY.

(From the New Zealand Herald.)

The jury system is generally regarded as the palladium of our liberty. The centuries during which it has been possessed by Englishmen, the protection it has afforded against political tyranny, and the seeming fairness ot being judged by those whose circumstances, experiences, and principles are identical with our own, have endeared it to us and made us cautious regarding any interference with “trial by our peers,” The resolutions, therefore, of Mr Gravers, in the House of Eepresentarives, for doing away with the necessity for unanimity in the finding of juries, and the substitution of the French and Scotch systems of decision by the majority, is an innovation that will arrest no little attention. Colonial life has a tendency to prompt to the investigation of first principles, and we should not be surprised if the whole question of our jury system will sooner or later have a similar experience withthejequally cherished system of open voting, and though notwhollyabolished, it may be subjected to very material modifications. It must be conceded that many and great are the defects apparent in the action of juries; and the uncertainty of verdicts has become a bye-word. Whether it is that in partially educated minds, passions and prejudice usurp the pjace of reason, or whether from inability to fairly balance the weight of evidence, certain it is that the most astute lawyers can only advise as to the probabilities of a verdict. No one familiar with the procedure of our law courts is unaware how frequently verdicts wholly belie anticipations, and conflict with the clearest evidence. The generality of jurors have not been accustomed in daily life to look through complicated relations; they do not know the legal value of evidence, which, as much as its truthfulness is concerned, should have a bearjng on decisions. If the punishment seems unduly severe as laid down by statute, they shrink from convicting. If something moves their sympathies or their displeasure, they use the power which law has given them to give expression to their bias. The specious pleading of a counsel who knows how to play on human feelings is all-powerful; and the last impression made is generally decisive; while it is admitted that the summing-up of the judge—as being the latest of all—is, if sufficiently decided in its tone, almost a sure index of the verdict that will follow. Disguisg it as we may, there is a general distrust of juries’ verdicts, and saving in cases of undoubted clearness, calculations are as often made on the bias of the feelings as on the sense of justice and the merits of the cause. It is not too nppeh to say th§t jffipre are few intelligent jpen, relying golely on the justice of their cause, who would not rather leave it in the hands of the judge, than subject it to the whims of men of like passions with themselves. The days when the jury was a shield against the tyranny of the Crown have passed away, and the, unimpeachable justice of the judge, and the purity of the ermine,’ are among the standard articles of our faith. And we believe that the substitution of a court where causes would be decided by minds trained in legal lore, and accustomed to penetrate the secrets of our involved social relations, would be hailed by sensible people as a general boon. To those who look for precedent and regard every suggestion unsupported jby experience as Utopian, it will be satisfactory to learn that colonial hands have already been laid on the jury system, and that nothing has resulted to shake the pillars of the Constitution. As we learn from the Law Times, the Canadian Legislature last year passed aq Agfc dispensing with juries in criminal cases by consent of the prisoners. The courts upon which this new judicial power is conferred do not sit regularly, but are convened from time to time as the occasion arises, and their jurisdiction extends to all offences for which a prisoner nyiy be tried at general sessions—that is, in fact, to nearly every crime short of a capital felony. The procedure is as follows Within twenty-four hours after a prisoner is committed for trial the sheriff notifies the fact to the judges, and, so soon as the local prosecutor is, ready to proceed with the

case, the is brought up in open «viurt,' under a judge’s order, when the charge is read over to him. He is then offered the option of being tried by the judge forthwith, or by a jury in the usual way at the.next session or assizes. If he accepts the former alternative, he is called upon to plead at once to the charge, and the trial then proceeds before the judges alone; but is conducted in all other respects in the ordinary way. The reform has, we are told, been very favorably received by all persons connected with the administration of the criminal law in Canada. There is no reason why it should not be equally satisfactory in New Zealand. It may be that public feeling would not sanction the *abolition of the jury ; but no evil could arise from giving the option of a substitute. If jurors must he paid, why not as well pay men whose minds have been trained to judicial procedure, who can estimate the weight of evidence and the balance of probabilities ? At least let us give to men the option of having their causes tried by the rules of equity and truth, rather than by the blundering stupidity and unreasoning passions of the canaille.