THE JURY SYSTEM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23108, 6 February 1937, Page 12

THE JURY SYSTEM

An incident which, occurred at the close of an abortive trial in a case in the Supreme Court at Wellington this week directs attention anew to a defect in the jury system.- The jury in this particular case was unable to agree as to its verdict, and the foreman blurted out the information that there were two of

its members who had made up their minds not to convict. The % obstinacy of these, two men thus prevented a conviction, their determination prevailing against the judgment of the other ten jurors. The principle that the verdict of a jury should be unanimous Has operated for so long that in the minds of some people it has acquired a quality of sacrosanctity. The Legislature has itself on various occasions resisted efforts that have been made, notably by Mr John MacGregor, to amend the law in such ,a way as would, except in capital cases, admit of a majority verdict, not a bare majority, but a three-fourths or five-sixths majority, being accepted. An amendment of this nature would involve no condemnation of the jury system itself. The jury system* is one that has stood the test of time, and that is recognised as constituting a bulwark of justice. But the argument that it is not susceptible of improvement is one which can appeal only to the most conservative mind. In a democratic country the rule that wisdom reposes with the majority is generally, observed. That rule is grossly violated by the principle that every member of a jury of twelve persons must be in agreement respecting the verdict in a criminal trial in order that a decision may be reached that the accused person is guilty or innocent. And it is notorious that the retention of that principle in the jury system has been productive of gross miscarriages of justice. It. is mainly for that reason that judges in this Dominion have expressed themselves as'favourable to such a reform, of the jury system as '*< would enable a majority of jurors—such a majority as would be expressive of a decision falling somewhat short of unanimity—to return a. .verdict. It seems so unreasonable" that one member or two members of a,Juiy, who may, to put it charitably, be possessed of some peculiar notions either about the' character -of the crime with which an accused person is charged or about the penal system, should be permitted to render a trial resultless that it Js. siirprisihg" that the principle requiring that a verdict should be unanimous- has survived for so long. ;" •