MIXED JURIES

Evening Post, Volume CI, Issue 96, 23 April 1921, Page 2

MIXED JURIES

IN THE DIVORCE COURT

A FIRST EXPERIENCE

DETERRENT TO DEPRAVITY.

(PROM OUR OWN CORMSPOUDBNT.)

LONBON, 3rd February.

One of the burning topics of the hour centres round the question of women jurors and mixed juries. Ought women jurors to be excluded from juries oalled upon to try unsavoury cases? Their first experience was in a divorce case last week, when it was decided that some particularly unpleasant exhibits—four pictures which had to be illuminated from behind—should not be seen by the six women, while there were letters written by the husband to the wife which counsel (Sir E. Marshall Hall) •described as "abominable and beastly." One of the women assented to counsel's compromise that the men jurors only should be shown the exhibits, and the others agreed. The men, who sat together in the front seats, were Bhown tha letters, and were permitted to gauge the character of the transparencies with the aid of matches lighted by the usher behind them. The Judge said this waa one of the difficulties that .arose from having women on juries : had the jury been composed of men lie would have passed the exhibits round, because they really could not gauge the relationship which had" existed between husband and wife without^ seeing them. From correspondence which ha« since ■ensued, women —professional women, at any rate—do not desire to be relieved of jury duties, but some lawyers are found to favour the Judge using his powers of exemption. The statute leaves to the Judge a discretion to make an order that a jury "shall be composed of men only or women' only, as the case may require." In addition, it provides that he may grant exemption from service to any woman who applies for it "by reason of tha,nature of the evjdence to be given, or of the issues to be tried." How a woman is to ascertain beforehand the nature of the evidence, is not set forth, but the Act authorises rules of Court which might be so framed as to render its operation to some extent compatible with the soci«l tradition* and customs of this country. VIEW* OF THEIR NEW RESPONSIBILITIES. Lady Selborne, much touched by tha wish of learned gentlemen to save women jurors from unpleasant oases, put the case very neatly, writing :—"lf you ajre trying to clean up a mess it is no. use being afraid of the dirt. Filthy detail:} are odious to clean-ruinded men and women, just as filthy smells are odious. But if either dootors or nurses were driven from their profession because of the sickening duties they have to perform, we should not think very wojl of them. We are not defiled by what we hoar, but by what we think. Women doctors and nurses are brought into contact with sin and the consequence of sin, and women lawyers and juror* will have to fac« tho facts of life. I am not afraid that they will be legs able to preserve themselves from contamination thss their brothers." Miss Lilian Barker, executive officer of the new gaining scheme of the Central Committee on Women'c Employment, who was one of the jurors, realises that there are a large number of wen who do not wish to see women in public life, using as the excuse that a certain _ number of perfect wives and mothers would learn things'of which they fave been carefully kept ignorant. "There are, of course, women who will not want to sit on juries-^who will not want U> do anything whioh woald give them any trouble or caure them any inconvenience—-and there is a correspondr ing class of mem. But the chief object tipn is one the reason for which has not been given : it i s common to both depraved men and women who do not wish, their corrupt practieses to be known ti> tho ordinary woman who wpnl4 be row mooed to sit on a jury. Such people

were safe "before in the freemasonry among men^-good and bad—which makes them hang together and conceal from the ordinary decent woman practices which if they were known would ha stopped by the force of the joint public opinion of decent men and decent women. If it were known that letters might, in the eventuality of a divorce, have to be read before a mixed jury, ,1 feel tolerably sure ttwy would never have been written- Depraved people have no scruples among themselves, nor have they any objection to a male jury knowing of what they have been guilty, but I should imagine the deterrent effect of mixed juries in the future would be great, " Nice-minded men are quite as indignant as we are at the attempt that is being made to exclude women. The matter will have to be thrashed out, and there will have to be the fullest! light of day thrown on every matter which conies into Court. If Sir Edward Marshall-Hall had not raised the question it would never have occurred to anyone that women jurors would not feel it their duty to consider the matters that might come before them in the same impersonal and sensible way as men jurors. The suggestion has had most undesirable results. If Sir Edward wished for some genuine cauee of complaint on grounds; of modesty find delicacy he would easily find it m the public benches of the Court, where as unpleasant a type of prurient-minded people as one could collect in the whole of London appears to come to enjoy details which are usually omitted in »ewapaper reports." Dr. Mary Sharjieb thinks women should seive as jurors; in all ordinary cases, including those of divorce and of murder. It is all nonsense to pretend that the nerves of women generally are not go good as those of men, and that thei-efore women jurors are less, fitted to carry out their duties as reliable citizens. Women must be prepared tq bear their full share of the work of the nation. " f do say, however, that there may be divorce cases from which all decent men would be glad to allow wctneh jurors the privilege of retiring." Mrs. Fauoett writes that, in considering whether women jurors should or should not be forced to hear evidences? tbe&e subjects, it appears to have bean completely forgotten by those who object to the presence of women, jurors that the evidence in such, caees-—un-pleasant enough though, it ifi bound to be—relates necessarily to difficulties and disputes in which women and children have been involved, or to offences committed against women and children. It is in precisely such cases that the need for women as jurors is greatest. The absurdity, if not the injustice, to the parties concerned w these cases, of excluding one sex, as such, fro*n the jury, would perhaps be more patent if it had anywhere been suggested that men should be tried by a jury of women only. All caeas, with a few inevitable exceptions, are best tried- by juries composed of both men and women. Both are human beings, and the interests qf both; are affected by all cases in the Courts.

To Miss Eva M. Hubback (Parljar mentaiy secretary of the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship), "It appears to have been completely forgotten, by those who object to the pro-. sence of women jurors, that women and, children are involved. Unpleasant though some evidence is bound to he, it is precisely in such cases that the need for jury women is greatest.. The only women who. would wish, to shirk tlwar duties, therefore:, are those whp prefer to remain blind * to' the difficulties and sufferings of their ]e~ fortunate sisters. Most cases are best tried' by jurors composed of both men and women. Both aire human, and the interests of both are affectecL" LEGAL COMMENT. The Law Journal says: "Parliament, in its wisdom, having empowered women to take part in the administration of the law, there is, of oourge, nothing to be done but to make the best of rather a bad job." But the incident in the Divorce Courts serves, to confirm the view that the active participation of women in the administration of justice, whether as jurors or as advocates, might sometimes hamper it. "The incident has its signifiance in regard to woman advocates as well as woman jurors. It indicates—what was repeatedly pointed out when the admissjoi* of women to the Bar was under discussion—that their appearance in certain classes of litigation and criminal trials, by embarrassing their opponents, may tend to interfere with the course of jus? tice. When women do practise in the Courts—and we are far from saying that there are not some classqs of litigation in which their service? may be useful^ they will, it may be hoped, abstain from appearing in. cases in which their presence is likely to have that mischievous result." i

A barrister writes: "It is absurd to say that the objection to women on the jury in certain divorce and criminal cases is based on a misconception of thf,nature of womankind, or thatitisasril-' vival of the antiquated notion of woman as a fragile creature who must be shielded from all unnecessary contact with the more sordid facts of life. It is not a question of equality but of decency; of chivalry if you like; certainly of mutual respect between the sexes. Things are spoken by men among men and by -women among women which are not mentioned ~in a mixed company. In cases where such questions do not arise, it is already evident the presence of women jurors has affected the methods of advocacy very considerably. There can be'no doubt that in certain cases the presence of women jurors will help the ends of justice, but -the demand for their attendance should be confined strictly to such cases."