An Essay On The Trial By Jury, Lysander Spooner [chrysanthemum read aloud .TXT] 📗
![](/uploads/posts/books/2/1/0/0/0/lysander-spooner-an-essay-on-the-trial-by-jury-1.jpg)
- Author: Lysander Spooner
Book online «An Essay On The Trial By Jury, Lysander Spooner [chrysanthemum read aloud .TXT] 📗». Author Lysander Spooner
Care To Know His Duty In Regard To The Law, That He Is Morally
Bound To Use In Other Matters Of Equal Importance. And This Care
It Does Require Of Him. Any Ignorance Of The Law, Therefore, That
Is Unnecessary, Or That Arises From Indifference Or Disregard Of
One's Duty, Is No Excuse. An Accused Person, Therefore, May Be
Rightfully Held Responsible For Such A Knowledge Of The Law As Is
Common To Men In General, Having No Greater Natural Capacities
Than Himself, And No Greater Opportunities For Learning The Law.
And He Can Rightfully Be Held To No Greater Knowledge Of The Law
Than This. To Hold Him Responsible For A Greater Knowledge Of The
Law Than Is Common To Mankind, When Other Things Are Equal,
Would Be Gross Injustice And Cruelty. The Mass Of Mankind Can
Give But Little Of Their Attention To Acquiring A Knowledge Of The
Law. Their Other Duties In Life Forbid It. Of Course, They Cannot
Investigate Abstruse Or Difficult Questions. All That Can
Rightfully Be Required Of Each Of Them, Then, Is That He Exercise
Such A Candid And Conscientious Judgment As It Is Common
Formankind Generally To Exercise In Such Matters. If He Have Done
This, It Would Be Monstrous To Punish Him Criminally For His
Errors; Errors Not Of Conscience, But Only Of Judgment. It Would
Also Be Contrary To The First Principles Of A Free Government
(That Is, A Government Formed By Voluntary Association) To Punish
Men In Such Cases, Because It Would Be Absurd To Suppose That Any
Man Would Voluntarily Assist To Establish Or Support A Government
That Would Punish Himself For Acts Which He Himself Did Not Know
To Be Crimes. But A Man May Reasonably Unite With His Fellow-Men
To Maintain A Government To Punish Those Acts Which He Himself
Considers Criminal, And May Reasonably Acquiesce In His Own
Liability To Be Punished For Such Acts. As Those Are The Only
Grounds On Which Any One Can Be Supposed To Render Any Voluntary
Support To A Government, It Follows That A Government Formed By
Voluntary Association, And Of Course Having No Powers Except Such
As All The Associates Have Consented That It May Have, Can Have
No Power To Punish A Man For Acts Which He Did Not Himself Know
To Be Criminal.
The Safety Of Society, Which Is The Only Object Of The Criminal
Law, Requires Only That Those Acts Which Are Understood By
Mankind At Large To Be Intrinsically Criminal, Should He Punished
As Crimes. The Remaining Few (If There Are Any) May Safely Be
Left To Go Unpunished. Nor Does The Safety Of Society Require
That Any Individuals, Other Than Those Who Have Sufficient Mental
Capacity To Understand That Their Acts Are Criminal, Should Be
Criminally Punished. All Others May Safely Be Left To Their
Liability, Under The Civil Law, To Compensate For Their
Unintentional Wrongs.
Chapter 9 (The Criminal Intent) Pg 156
The Only Real Object Of This Absurd And Atrocious Doctrine, That
"Ignorance Of The Law (That Is, Of Crime) Excuses No One," And
That "Everyone Is Bound To Know The Criminal Law," (That Is,
Bound To Know What Is A Crime,) Is To Maintain An Entirely
Arbitrary Authority On The Part Of The Government, And To Deny To
The People All Right To Judge For Themselves What Their Own
Rights And Liberties Are. In Other Words, The Whole Object Of The
Doctrine Is To Deny To The People Themselves All Right To Judge
What Statutes And Other Acts Of The Government Are Consistent Or
Inconsistent With Their Own Rights And Liberties; And Thus To
Reduce The People To The Condition Of Mere Slaves To A Despotic
Power, Such As The People Themselves Would Never Have
Voluntarily Established, And The Justice Of Whose Laws The People
Themselves Cannot Understand.
Under The True Trial By Jury All Tyranny Of This Kind Would Be
Abolished. A Jury Would Not Only Judge What Acts Were Really
Criminal, But They Would Judge Of The Mental Capacity Of An
Accused Person, And Of His Opportunities For Understand- Ing The
True Character Of His Conduct. In Short, They Would Judge Of His
Moral Intent From All The Circumstances Of The Case, And Acquit
Him, If They Had Any Reasonable Doubt That He Knew That He Was
Committing A Crime. [2]
[1] This Presumption, Founded Upon Age Alone, Is As Absurd In
Civil Matters As In Criminal. What Can Be More Entirely Ludicrous
Than The Idea That All Men (Not Manifestly Imbecile) Become
Mentally Competent To Make All Contracts Whatsoever On The Day
They Become Twenty-One Years Of Age? And That, Previous To That
Day, No Man Becomes Competent To Make Any Contract Whatever,
Except For The Present Supply Of The Most Obvious Wants Of
Nature? In Reason, A Man's Legal Competency To Make
Binding Contracts, In Any And Every Case Whatever, Depends
Wholly Upon His Mental Capacity To Make Reasonable Contracts In
Each Particular Case. It Of Course Requires More Capacity To Make A
Reasonable Contract In Some Cases Than In Others. It Requires,
For Example, More Capacity To Make A Reasonable Contract In The
Purchase Of A Large Estate, Than In The Purchase Of A Pair Of
Shoes. But The Mental Capacity To Make A Reasonable Contract, In
Any Particular Case, Is, In Reason, The Only Legal Criterion Of
The Legal Competency To Make A Binding Contract In That Case. The
Age, Whether More Or Less Than Twenty-One Years, Is Of No Legal
Consequence Whatever, Except That It Is Entitled To Some
Consideration As Evidence Of Capacity.
It May Be Mentioned, In This Connection, That The Rules That
Prevail, That Every Man Is Entitled To Freedom From Parental
Authority At Twenty-One Years Of Age, And No One Before That Age,
Are Of The Same Class Of Absurdities With Those That Have Been
Mentioned. The Only Ground On Which A Parent Is Ever Entitled To
Exercise Authority Over His Child, Is That The Child Is Incapable
Of Taking Reasonable Care Of Himself. The Child Would Be Entitled
To His Freedom From His Birth, If He Were At That Time Capable Of
Chapter 9 (The Criminal Intent) Pg 157Taking Reasonable Care Of Himself. Some Become Capable Of Taking
Care Of Themselves At An Earlier Age Than Others. And Whenever
Any One Becomes Capable Of Taking Reasonable Care Of Himself, And
Not Until Then, He Is Entitled To His Freedom, Be His Age More Or
Less.
These Principles Would Prevail Under The True Trial By Jury, The
Jury Being The Judges Of The Capacity Of Every Individual Whose
Capacity Should Be Called In Question.
[2] In Contrast To The Doctrines Of The Text, It May Be Proper To
Present More Distinctly The Doctrines That Are Maintained By
Judges, And That Prevail In Courts Of Justice. Of Course, No
Judge, Either Of The Present Day, Or Perhaps Within The Last Five
Hundred Years, Has Admitted The Right Of A Jury To Judge Of The
Justice Of A Law, Or To Hold Any Law Invalid For Its Injustice.
Every Judge Asserts The Power Of The Government To Punish For
Acts That Are Intrinsically Innocent, And Which Therefore Involve
Or Evince No Criminal Intent. To Accommodate The Administration
Of Law To This Principle, All Judges, So Far As I Am Aware, Hold
It To Be Unnecessary That An Indictment Should Charge, Or That A
Jury Should Find, That An Act Was Done With A Criminal Intent,
Except In Those Cases Where The Act Is Malum In Se, Criminal In
Itself. In All Other Cases, So Far As I Am Aware, They Hold It
Sufficient That The Indictment Charge, And Consequently That The
Jury Find, Simply That The Act Was Done " Contrary To The Form Of
The Statute In Such Case Made And Provided;" In Other Words,
Contrary To The Orders Of The Government.
All These Doctrines Prevail Universally Among Judges, And Are, I
Think, Uniformly Practised Upon In Courts Of Justice; And They
Plainly Involve The Most Absolute Despotism On The Part Of The
Government.
But There Is Still Another Doctrine That Extensively, And Perhaps
Most Generally, Prevails In Practice, Although Judges Are Not
Agreed In Regard To Its Soundness. It Is This: That It Is Not
Even Necessary That The Jury Should See Or Know, For Themselves,
What The Law Is That Is Charged To Have Been Violated; Nor To See
Or Know, For Themselves, That The Act Charged Was In Violation Of
Any Law Whatever; But That It Is Sufficient That They Be Simply
Told By The Judge That Any Act Whatever, Charged In An
Indictment, Is In Violation Of Law, And That They Are Then Bound
Blindly To Receive The Declaration As True, And Convict A Man
Accordingly, If They Find That He Has Done The Act Charged.
This Doctrine Is Adopted By Many Among The Most Eminent Judges,
And The Reasons For It Are Thus Given By Lord Mansfield:
"They (The Jury) Do Not Know, And Are Not Presumed To Know, The
Law. They Are Not Sworn To Decide The Law;" [3] They Are Not
Required To Do It... The Jury Ought Not To Assume The
Jurisdiction Of Law. They Do Not Know, And Are Not Presumed To
Know, Anything Of The Matter. They Do Not Understand The Language
Chapter 9 (The Criminal Intent) Pg 158In Which It Is Conceived, Or The Meaning Of The Terms. They Have
No Rule To Go By But Their Passions And Wishes." 8 Term Rep.,
428, Note.
What Is This But Saying That The People, Who Are Supposed To Be
Represented In Juries, And Who Institute And Support The
Government, (Of Course For The Protection Of Their Own Rights And
Liberties, As They Understand Them, For Plainly No Other Motive
Can Be Attributed To Them,) Are Really The Slaves Of A Despotic
Power, Whose Arbitrary Commands Even They Are Not Supposed
Competent To Understand, But For The Transgression Of Which They
Are Nevertheless To Be Punished As Criminals
This Is Plainly The Sum Of The Doctrine, Because The Jury Are The
Peers (Equals) Of The Accused, And Are Therefore Supposed To Know
The Law As Well As He Does, And As Well As It Is Known By The
People At Large. If They (The Jury) Are Not Presumed To Know The
Law, Neither The Accused Nor The People At Large Can Be Presumed
To Know It. Hence, It Follows That One Principle Of The Truetrial By
Jury Is, That No Accused Person Shall Be Held Responsible For Any
Other Or Greater Knowledge Of The Law Than Is Common To His
Political Equals, Who Will Generally Be Men Of Nearly Similar
Condition In Life. But The Doctrine Of
Comments (0)