WOMEN JURORS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 207, 2 September 1936, Page 14

WOMEN JURORS.

A SUCCESS ABROAD.

CAPABLE AND FAIR-MINDED.

"I believe in jury service for women,' says James H. Hebron in an article specially written for "Equal Rights," the official organ of the National Woman's party of America.

Mr. Hebron is managing director of the Baltimore Criminal Justice Commission, director of the Community Fund, Baltimore, secretary of the United States Federation of Justice, consulting director of the Philadelphia Criminal Justice Commission, member of the Governor's Advisory Committee on Unemployment Relief, and occupies many other important offices. Mr. Hebron says that his belief is not based upon the equal rights argument, but is founded solely on the conviction that jury service by women will make for greater efficiency in the administration of justice. Briefly summed up, his reasons, for advocating jury service by women are that experience has proved that women are less apt to be sentimental over criminals, and particularly attractive women criminals, than are men, because fewer women than men are engaged in pursuits, and therefore have more leisure time, thereby making it possible to get better types of jurors; because it has been proved that female juries are more accurate and thorough in working out detailed facts and examining evidence; becaxise in so many cases women, girls and children are involved; and because jury service is as much the concern of women as it is of men (It does seem as if Mr. Hebron is an Equal Rights-er after all.)

Mr. Hebron says that the question, "Is the jury ever right?" has been raised by psychologists and scientists who have studied the findings of juries and the statements of witnesses. "One of the interesting findings of this group has been that completely female juries on the average excelled male juries— both as to accuracy as well as thoroughness . . . unless the suspect happened to be an alluring male. . . . This, however, proves the necessity for mixed juries." In further support of liis belief in mixed juries, he quotes Courtney Ryley Cooper, who contends that girl criminals are often more dangerous than men. Every man criminal, he says, has his female accessory. It is such women who assist in their fake alibis, act as shields and look-outs, and arrange the hideouts to which they flee for safety. Police and prosecutors frequently let such females slip through their fingers because they know only too well the utter futility of attempting to convict them before a jury, not of their peers, but made up entirely of men, many of whom are morons, if not outright dim-wits. The balance, if they do not fall in this category, usually have a maudlin sentimentality for anything in "skirts." Mr. Hebron thinks there are just as many "dim-wits and morons" among women as men, but because women have more leisure time, there is a "better chance that we will get higher types of jurors" from" among their ranks. The "Opposite Sex" Question. It would seem as if the "opposite sex" is the downfall of women as well as men, for William Moulton Marston, the psychologist, who is credited with having discovered the systolic blood pressure deception test, well known as the lie detector, gives examples of

women jurors making errors in their findings, when the witnesses were handsome, self-assertive men, or as in the case of the good-looking young Irish lawyer, who insisted that his observations were right. Male jurors invariably threw out all the Irishman's statements. Such difficulties as this, however, would be overcome by a jury composed of both men and women. Dr. Marston considers that women are far more patient in working-out detailed facts than men. Two out of three of his female juries prepared exhaustive charts by which they compared the testimony of all witnesses on all points at issue. Not a single male jury did this. Because so many men who were competent to serve on juries secured exemption on the most plausible excuses, juries were not always representative of all sections of the community. In speaking of the position in America, Mr. Hebron says that "juries in many places all too frequently represent a much lower and sometimes the very lowest stratum of society. We sink to pretty low levels in this country when it comes to the matter of jury personnel. In one Chicago murder case they actually empanelled ten thousand jurors and examined over four thousand of this number before they could get a jury stupid enough to try the case." Men, he said, pay small annual dues to become honorary members of the State militia, and use all means to dodge the important civic duty of jury service. A HigK Reputation. Women do jury duty in England, and in twenty-seven American States, and their reputation as jurors is high. In eleven of ' the States' jurisdictions, women must be excused from jury service on request, while on the other hand Louisiana does not permit women to act on juries unless upon their written request. Before women served on juries in those States, many objections were raised by legislators, lawyers and officials; but in every instance women jurors proved their ability, and leading judges of the States concerned have testified to their fairmindedness, capability, accuracy in the weighing of testimony, both in civil and criminal cases. They said that women were not hysterical and emotional, as was predicted by the opponents of jury service for women, and contended that they were less inclined to give way to impulses or emotions than many male jurors. Fewer exemptions were claimed by women, and the claims made were for good cause.

The argument that women do not want to serve on juries is hollow. Jury service is one of the responsibilities of citizenship and - whether or not some women want to accept this responsibility has nothing to do with the question. Women have proved their ability to do this work, and there is no reason why they should not share this civic duty with men; all reasonable women realise that equality of status extends beyond the field of privileges and rewards to duties and responsibilities. England, on whose legal system Australian law lias been based, calls women to jury service, but the Commonwealth has not yet followed her lead in this direction, which is regrettable when it has been proved that women's contribution to this work would make for the more efficient administration of justice.