Reversing the Old Maxim.
By Editor
Judge John A. Jameson, in a recent contribution to the North American Review, says that of the things necessary to be done to save our civilization, the first and most important is to cause a complete change of attitude on the part of society toward wrong-doing. What is now the attitude maintained? It is one either of indifference, toleration, or connivance, or one suggestive of paralysis of the power of indignation and of every faculty needed for the repression of crime. Toward the criminal the attitude of the public is that of weak pity, not unmingled with admiration. The criminal is an unfortunate man, to save whom from punishment seems to be the chief end of the law. Look for a moment at his trial in a court of justice. The jury, carefully selected for their ignorance, are made judges of both law and fact; to convict they must be unanimous; if they have a reasonable doubt of guilt, they must acquit; they are themselves to determine what is a reasonable doubt; and, to crown all, they are instructed that it is better that ten guilty men should escape than one innocent man should be punished. These rules and maxims, devised centuries ago by merciful judges, then met the ends of justice, since, as the laws were, as against the crown officers seeking to convict, a person accused had no chance of acquittal, for he was allowed neither council nor witnesses; but now they operate to screen the guilty from punishment, save in the few cases where there is a general cry for vengeance against some atrocious offender.—Ed.