An Essay On The Trial By Jury - Lysander Spooner (little red riding hood read aloud .TXT) 📗
- Author: Lysander Spooner
Book online «An Essay On The Trial By Jury - Lysander Spooner (little red riding hood read aloud .TXT) 📗». Author Lysander Spooner
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
Chapter 10 ( Moral Considerations For Jurors) Pg 184Absurd 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."
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
Chapter 10 ( Moral Considerations For Jurors) Pg 185To 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 186
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
King 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
Chapter 11 (Authority Of Magna Carta) Pg 187The 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 Courage Of The Nation, That The Kings Held
Their Thrones Only On The Condition Of Their Renewed and Solemn
Promises Of Observance. And It Was Not Until 1429, (As Will Be
More Fully Shown Hereafter,) When A Truce Between Themselves,
And
A Formal Combination Against The Mass Of The People, Had Been
Entered into, By The King, The Nobility, And The "Forty Shilling
Freeholders," (A Class Whom Mackintosh Designates As "A Few
Freeholders Then Accounted wealthy," [1]) By The Exclusion Of All
Others Than Such Freeholders From All Voice In the Election Of
Knights To Represent The Counties In the House Of Commons, That A
Repetition Of These Confirmations Of Magna Carta Ceased to Be
Demanded. And Obtained. [2]
The Terms And The Formalities Of Some Of These "Confirmations"
Make Them Worthy Of Insertion At Length.
Hume Thus Describes One Which Took Place In the 38Th Year Of
Henry Iii. (1253):
" But As They (The Barons) Had Experienced his (The King'S)
Frequent Breach Of Promise, They Required that He Should Ratify
The Great Charter In a Manner Still More Authentic And Solemn
Than Any Which He Had Hitherto Employed. All The Prelates And
Abbots Were Assembled. They Held Burning tapers In their Hands.
The Great Charter Was Read Before Them. They Denounced the
Sentence Of Excommunication Against Every One Who Should
Thenceforth Violate That Fundamental Law. They Threw Their Tapers
On The Ground, And Exclaimed, May The Soul Of Every One Who
Incurs This Sentence So Stink And Corrupt In hell! The King bore
A Part In this Ceremony, And Subjoined, ' So Help Me God! I Will
Keep All These Articles Inviolate, As I Am A Man, As I Am A
Christian, As I Am A Knight, And As I Am A King crowned and
Anointed.' " Hume, Ch. 12. See Also Blackstone'S Introd. To The
Charters. Black. Law Tracts, Oxford Ed., P. 332. Makintosh'S
Hist. Of Eng., Ch. 3. Lardner'S Cab. Cyc., Vol. 45, P. 233 4.
The Following is The Form Of "The Sentence Of Excommunication"
Referred to By Hume:
Chapter 11 (Authority Of Magna Carta) Pg 188
"The Sentence Of Curse, Given By The Bishops, Against The
Breakers Of The Charters.
"The Year Of Our Lord A Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty-Three, The
Third Day Of May, In the Great Hall Of The King at Westminster,
In The Presence, And By The Assent, Of The Lord Henry, By The
Grace
Comments (0)