THE object of a trial is not to convict--neither is it to acquit. The
object is to ascertain the truth by legal testimony and in accordance
with law.
In this country we give the accused the benefit of all reasonable
doubts. We insist that his guilt shall be really established by
competent testimony.
We also allow the accused to take exceptions to the rulings of the judge
before whom he is tried, and to the verdict of the jury, and to have
these exceptions passed upon by a higher court.
We also insist that he shall be tried by an impartial jury, and that
before he can be found guilty all the jurors must unite in the verdict.
Some people, not on trial for any crime, object to our methods. They
say that time is wasted in getting an impartial jury; that more time is
wasted because appeals are allowed, and that by reason of insisting on a
strict compliance with law in all respects, trials sometimes linger for
years, and that in many instances the guilty escape.
No one, so far as I know, asks that men shall be tried by partial and
prejudiced jurors, or that judges shall be allowed to disregard the law
for the sake of securing convictions, or that verdicts shall be allowed
to stand unsupported by sufficient legal evidence. Yet they talk as
if they asked for these very things. We must remember that revenge is
always in haste, and that justice can always afford to wait until the
evidence is actually heard.
There should be no delay except that which is caused by taking the time
to find the truth. Without such delay courts become mobs, before which,
trials in a legal sense are impossible. It might be better, in a city
like New York, to have the grand jury in almost perpetual session,
so that a man charged with crime could be immediately indicted and
immediately tried. So, the highest court to which appeals are taken
should be in almost constant session, in order that all appeals might be
quickly decided.
But we do not wish to take away the right of appeal. That right tends to
civilize the trial judge, reduces to a minimum his arbitrary power, puts
his hatreds and passions in the keeping and control of his intelligence.
That right of appeal has an excellent effect on the jury, because they
know that their verdict may not be the last word. The appeal, where the
accused is guilty, does not take the sword from the State, but it is a
shield for the innocent.
In England there is no appeal. The trials are shorter, the judges more
arbitrary, the juries subservient, and the verdict often depends on the
prejudice of the judge. The judge knows that he has the last guess--that
he cannot be reviewed--and in the passion often engendered by the
conflict of trial he acts much like a wild beast.
The case of Mrs. Maybrick is exactly in point, and shows how dangerous
it is to clothe the trial judge with supreme power.
Without doubt there is in this country too much delay, and this, it
seems to me, can be avoided without putting the life or liberty of
innocent persons in peril. Take only such time as may be necessary to
give the accused a fair trial, before an impartial jury, under and in
accordance with the established forms of law, and to allow an appeal to
the highest court.
The State in which a criminal cannot have an impartial trial is not
civilized. People who demand the conviction of the accused without
regard to the forms of law are savages.
But there is another side to this question. Many people are losing
confidence in the idea that punishment reforms the convict, or that
capital punishment materially decreases capital crimes.
My own opinion is that ordinary criminals should, if possible, be
reformed, and that murderers and desperate wretches should be imprisoned
for life. I am inclined to believe that our prisons make more criminals
than they reform; that places like the Reformatory at Elmira plant and
cultivate the seeds of crime.
The State should never seek revenge; neither should it put in peril the
life or liberty of the accused for the sake of a hasty trial, or by the
denial of appeal.
In my judgment, defective as our criminal courts and methods are, they
are far better than the English.
Our judges are kinder, more humane; our juries nearer independent, and
our methods better calculated to ascertain the truth.