CORRESPONDENCE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIV, Issue 49, 26 August 1907, Page 4

CORRESPONDENCE.

■ ■ ♦ THE INTEGRITY OF THE JURY. o TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— The remarks of Mr, Justice Cooper, to which you give your emphatic endorsement, may have been deserved by the ■jui?y in question, but isift there something' to bo said from the juror's point of view? Assuming a juror to feel strongly tnat the- law is inequitable and that an adverse verdict, even though given "according to the evidence," Mill seriously affect an individual •whom he does not regard as a wrongdoer, is he justified in assenting to such a verdict? In the case in question I can well imagine the jury arguing in this wise :—,: — , "The State permits gambling, the State licenses gambling, the State makes a profit out ol gambling ; are we to brank a man as a criminal for following the examples set him by ths State? Of course, by their oath they arc bound, to consider tho evidence and the evidence alone, bi>t, remember, the oath is not taken of their free a\ ill, — th?y are compelled to servo on the jury, and incidentally to take the oath, unaer a heavy penalty. If they are in the unKapfcv position of being compelled by circumstances to violate something, are they not rijght in preferring to violate an oath forced on them, rather than thejr,, pyn consciences, which are free ? Personally,' 1 I ' regard the verdict as regrettable, but I cannot join in the condemnation of the jury,~becaui-.3 under certain circumstances, I shotild act in the same way myself. I have never besn~,bn a -.'criminal jury, and J hope 1 never shall be ; but if I were unfortunate enough to bo compelled to terv3 o» &. .tfiaJi oh/a 'Capital charge I am afraid I should disregard the evidence and my oath. I feel so sh-o.ngly lhat nothing can justify ..he taking of human life, either by the Stato cr an individual, that no oath- would induce me to assent a.vei'diet that would lead to tho perpetration of such a crime. I realise, jof course, that I would not pronounce sentence on ths offender : "but as my verdict would oompsl tho Judg* to do go, I should not hesitate toj.yiqlato my oath rather than bs any" pSfrf y to, condemning a fdlow-creaturt to a viokht death. \. I may ba wrong, bu|^.at loa*t 1" have precedent. When l.u-cbny to the value of 40s -was a capital offence, did not jiuftr 'after jury, rotnpfctcly disregarding evidence, find- piisonero guilty of larceny to the valuo of 395? And who will blame th<J7n? Iv was their v oiily effective method of 'protest against a brutal and unjust law. It is' nnfortu-na&s-"ft*;<a mail wheH hi. finds ihe tiuty ir»jpose<l on-Jiim by tha yt.ite afe'coni-pjct-o vaWence \v;th hi; tfeought-tict- convictions-,- • but I-'cannot Warns iu&LitVspjts cfjhis mjiißatloh^ liq toh^6s l^ the l^tter.r^-I .am. etc. : —r'VT" P-OTENTIALJUBOR. 21st August, IEO7.