Advertisement

English VI.

Debate of Mar. 1, 1894.

Question: "Resolved, That the principle of unanimity in jury verdicts should be maintained in criminal cases.

Brief for the Affirmative.

E. R. Coffin and E. A. Howes, Jr.

Best general references: Forsythe, Trial by Jury, Chap. 11; Century III, 127; Am. Law Rev. XXI, 865-866; No. Am. Rev. 139, p. 1; Pop. Sci. Mo. XXIV, 679-681.

I. Presumption is strongly against change, for; (a) the principle of unanimity is sanctioned by long custom; (b) the law has developed in conformity with this principle; (c) the unanimity principle has done great service.

Advertisement

II. Criminal and civil cases should be distinguished; (a) as regards the parties to the action; (b) as regards the questions to be settled.

III. Existing evils will not be corrected by the proposed change.

IV. Under the rule of unanimous verdicts, (a) the accused is given the benefit of all reasonable doubt, (b) every jury-man's opinion must receive full consideration, (c) in case of disagreement, no wrong is done the accused.

Brief for the Negative.

Avery Coonley and A. D. Greenfield.

Best general references: Forum IX, p. 309; Forsythe, Trial by Jury, chap. 11.

I. The requirement of unanimity is merely a relic of the Anglo-Saxon customs. It is contrary (a) To the practice of every country except England and the United States. Forum IX, p. 314. (b) To all analogies, even in those two countries; e. g., legislative bodies, courts, etc. Forum IX, p. 320.

II. It is irrational, for (a) While it is based on the injustice of convicting a man if even one juror has a reasonable doubt of his guilt; yet if eleven believe him innocent and one does not, he cannot be acquitted. (b) It presupposes that twelve men will be likely really to agree on a doubtful question.

III. It is immoral. (a) It encourages perjury, since it gives a minority a power of intimidation. Forsythe p. 207. (b) It encourages corruption, through (1) jury packing, and (2) bribery, (c) The numerous miscarriages of justice through disagreements and compromises, by destroying public confidence in the efficacy of the law, (1) encourage crime, and (2) afford an excuse for lynch law.

Recommended Articles

Advertisement