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
Of The People, From Whom Jurors Are Taken, Are Responsible To A
Law, Which It Is Agreed They Cannot Understand. What Is This But
Despotism? And Not Merely Despotism, But Insult And Oppression
Of The Intensest Kind?
[3] This Declaration Of Mansfield, That Juries In England "Are
Not Sworn To Decide The Law" In Criminal Cases, Is A Plain
Falsehood. They Are Sworn To Try The Whole Case At Issue Between
The King And The Prisoner, And That Includes The Law As Well As
The Fact. See Jurors Oath, Page 85.
This Doctrine Of Mansfield Is The Doctrine Of All Who Deny The
Right Of Juries To Judge Of The Law, Although All May Not Choose
To Express It In So Blunt And Unambiguous Terms. But The Doctrine
Evidently Admits Of No Other Interpretation Or Defence.
Chapter 10 (Moral Considerations For Jurors) Pg 159
The Trial By Jury Must, If Possible, Be Construed To Be Such That
A Man Can Rightfully Sit In A Jury, And Unite With His Fellows In
Giving Judgment. But No Man Can Rightfully Do This, Unless He
Hold In His Own Hand Alone A Veto Upon Any Judgment Or Sentence
Whatever To Be Rendered By The Jury Against A Defendant, Which
Veto He Must Be Permitted To Use According To His Own Discretion
And Conscience, And Not Bound To Use According To The Dictation
Of Either Legislatures Or Judges.
Chapter 10 (Moral Considerations For Jurors) Pg 160
The Prevalent Idea, That A Juror May, At The Mere Dictation Of A
Legislature Or A Judge, And Without The Concurrence Of His Own
Conscience Or Understanding, Declare A Man "Guilty," And Thus In
Effect License The Government To Punish Him; And That The
Legislature Or The Judge, And Not Himself, Has In That Case All
The Moral Responsibility For The Correctness Of The Principles On
Which The Judgment Was Rendered, Is One Of The Many Gross
Impostures By Which It Could Hardly Have Been Supposed That Any
Sane Man Could Ever Have Been Deluded, But Which Governments
Have Nevertheless Succeeded In Inducing The People At Large To Receive
And Act Upon.
As A Moral Proposition, It Is Perfectly Self-Evident That, Unless
Juries Have All The Legal Rights That Have Been Claimed For Them
In The Preceding Chapters, That Is, The Rights Of Judging What
The Law Is, Whether The Law Be A Just One, What Evidence Is
Admissible, What Weight The Evidence Is Entitled To, Whether An
Act Were Done With A Criminal Intent, And The Right Also To Limit
The Sentence, Free Of All Dictation From Any Quarter, They Have
No Moral Right To Sit In The Trial At All, And Cannot Do So
Without Making Themselves Accomplices In Any Injustice That They
May Have Reason To Believe May Result From Their Verdict. It Is
Absurd To Say That They Have No Moral Responsibility For The Use
That May Be Made Of Their Verdict By The Government, When They
Have Reason To Suppose It Will Be Used For Purposes Of Injustice.
It Is, For Instance, Manifestly Absurd To Say That Jurors Have No
Moral Responsibility For The Enforcement Of An Unjust Law, When
They Consent To Render A Verdict Of Guilty For The Transgression
Of It; Which Verdict They Know, Or Have Good Reason To Believe,
Will Be Used By The Government As A Justification For Inflicting
A Penalty.
It Is Absurd, Also, To Say That Jurors Have No Moral
Responsibility For A Punishment Indicted Upon A Man Against Law,
When, At The Dictation Of A Judge As To What The Law Is, They
Have Consented To Render A Verdict Against Their Own Opinions Of
The Law.
It Is Absurd, Too, To Say That Jurors Have No Moral
Responsibility For The Conviction And Punishment Of An Innocent
Man, When They Consent To Render A Verdict Against Him On The
Strength Of Evidence, Or Laws Of Evidence, Dictated To Them By
The Court, If Any Evidence Or Laws Of Evidence Have Been
Excluded, Which They (The Jurors) Think Ought To Have Been
Admitted In His Defence.
It Is Absurd To Say That Jurors Have No Moral Responsibility For
Rendering A Verdict Of "Guilty" Against A Man, For An Act Which
He Did Not Know To Be A Crime, And In The Commission Of Which,
Therefore, He Could Have Had No Criminal Intent, In Obedience To
The Instructions Of Courts That "Ignorance Of The Law (That Is,
Of Crime) Excuses No One."
Chapter 10 (Moral Considerations For Jurors) Pg 161
It Is Absurd, Also, To Say That Jurors Have No Moral
Responsibility For Any Cruel Or Unreasonable Sentence That May Be
Inflicted Even Upon A Guilty Man, When They Consent To Render A
Verdict Which They Have Reason To Believe Will Be Used By The
Government As A Justification For The Infliction Of Such
Sentence.
The Consequence Is, That Jurors Must Have The Whole Case In Their
Hands, And Judge Of Law, Evidence, And Sentence, Or They Incur
The Moral Responsibility Of Accomplices In Any Injustice Which
They Have Reason To Believe Will Be Done By The Government On The
Authority Of Their Verdict.
The Same Principles Apply To Civil Cases As To Criminal. If A
Jury Consent, At The Dictation Of The Court, As To Either Law Or
Evidence, To Render A Verdict, On The Strength Of Which They Have
Reason To Believe That A Man's Property Will Be Taken From Him
And Given To Another, Against Their Own Notions Of Justice, They
Make Themselves Morally Responsible For The Wrong.
Every Man, Therefore, Ought To Refuse To Sit In A Jury, And To
Take The Oath Of A Juror, Unless The Form Of The Oath Be Such As
To Allow Him To Use His Own Judgment, On Every Part Of The Case,
Free Of All Dictation Whatsoever, And To Hold In His Own Hand A
Veto Upon Any Verdict That Can Be Rendered Against A Defendant,
And Any Sentence That Can Be Inflicted Upon Him, Even If He Be
Guilty.
Of Course, No Man Can Rightfully Take An Oath As Juror, To Try A
Case "According To Law," (If By Law Be Meant Anything Other Than
His Own Ideas Of Justice,) Nor "According To The Law And The
Evidence, As They Shall Be Given Him." Nor Can He Rightfully Take
An Oath Even To Try A Case "According To The Evidence," Because
In All Cases He May Have Good Reason To Believe That A Party Has
Been Unable To Produce All The Evidence Legitimately Entitled To
Be Received. The Only Oath Which It Would Seem That A Man Can
Rightfully Take As Juror, In Either A Civil Or Criminal Case, Is,
That He "Will Try The Case According To His Conscience." Of
Course, The Form May Admit Of Variation, But This Should Be The
Substance. Such, We Have Seen, Were The Ancient Common Law
Oaths.
Chapter 11 (Authority Of Magna Carta) Pg 162
Probably No Political Compact Between King And People Was
Ever
Entered Into In A Manner To Settle More Authoritatively The
Fundamental Law Of A Nation, Than Was Magna Carta. Probably No
People Were Ever More United And Resolute In Demanding From
Their
Chapter 11 (Authority Of Magna Carta) Pg 163King A Definite And Unambiguous Acknowledgment Of Their Rights
And Liberties, Than Were The English At That Time. Probably No
King Was Ever More Completely Stripped Of All Power To Maintain
His Throne, And At The Same Time Resist The Demands Of His
People, Than Was John On The 15th Day Of June, 1215. Probably No
King Every Consented, More Deliberately Or Explicitly, To Hold
His Throne Subject To Specific And Enumerated Limitations Upon
His Power, Than Did John When He Put His Seal To The Great
Charter Of The Liberties Of England. And If Any Political Compact
Between King And People Was Ever Valid To Settle The Liberties Of
The People, Or To Limit The Power Of The Crown, That Compact Is
Now To Be Found In Magna Carta. If, Therefore, The Constitutional
Authority Of Magna Carta Had Rested Solely Upon The Compact Of
John With His People, That Authority Would Have Been Entitled To
Stand Forever As The Supreme Law Of The Land, Unless Revoked By
The Will Of The People Themselves.
But The Authority Of Magna Carta Does Not Rest Alone Upon The
Compact With John. When, In The Next Year, (1216,) His Son, Henry
Iii., Came To The Throne, The Charter Was Ratified By Him, And
Again In 1217, And Again In 1225, In Substantially The Same Form,
And Especially Without Allowing Any New Powers, Legislative,
Judicial, Or Executive, To The King Or His Judges, And Without
Detracting In The Least From The Powers Of The Jury. And From The
Latter Date To This, The Charter Has Remained Unchanged.
In The Course Of Two Hundred Years The Charter Was Confirmed By
Henry And His Successors More Than Thirty Times. And Although
They Were Guilty Of Numerous And Almost Continual Breaches Of It,
And Were Constantly Seeking To Evade It, Yet Such Were The
Spirit, Vigilance And
Comments (0)