Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/367

 336

FORM OF PROCEDURE IN CAPITAL TRIALS AMONG THE JEWS. IN a former article on " Capital Punishment among the Jews," (The Green Bag June, 189 1,) we drew largely from Mr. Benny's " Criminal Code of the Jews," and we are indebted to the same work for the following account of the procedure inciden tal to the trial of capital cases among that people. A capital trial among the Jews was con ducted with all the solemnity of a religious ceremony. The exercise of judicial functions was at all times regarded as a sacred privi lege; and the reponsibility incurred in criminal cases was ever present to the Hebrew mind. " A judge," says the Talmud, "should always consider that a sword threat ens him from above, and destruction yawns at his feet." Rising betimes in the morning, the members of the Synhedrin assembled after prayers in the Hall of Justice. Pending the arrival of the culprit and the pre parations for the trial, they commented among one another on the serious nature of the duties they were called to discharge. The judges were so arranged as to sit in a semicircle. Immediately in front of them were three rows of disciples. Each row numbered three-and-twenty persons. Thus every judge was assisted by three juniors. These disciples were not young and inexpe rienced students, but were many of them in no wise inferior to the members of the court itself. Any vacancies in the first row were filled up from the second; any required in the second were supplied from the third rank; and the third was recruited from the number of learned men to be found in every place having a permanent Synhedrin. Three scribes were present; one was seated on the right, one on the left, the third in the centre of the hall. The first recorded the names of the judges who voted for the acquittal of the accused, and the arguments upon which

the acquittal was grounded. The second noted the names of such as decided to con demn the prisoner, and the reasons upon which the conviction was based. The third kept an account of both the preceding, so as to be able any time to supply omissions or check inaccuracies in the memoranda of his brother reporters. The culprit was placed in a conspicuous position where he could see everything and be seen by all. Opposite to him and in full view of the court were the witnesses. Thus constituted and arranged, the Synhedrin commenced its investigations. The procedure in a capital trial differed in many important respects from that adhered to in ordinary cases. In an ordinary case the discussions of the judges commenced with arguments for or against the accused; in a capital charge it could only begin with an argument urged in behalf of the prisoner. In an ordinary case a majority of one was suffi cient to convict; in a capital charge a major ity of one could acquit, but a majority of two was necessary to condemn. In ordinary cases judgment pronounced could always be annulled upon discovery of an error; in capital cases the decision was irrevocable once the accused had been declared innocent. In ordinary cases the disciples present could offer opinions for or against either party; in a capital trial they were only permitted to suggest arguments in favor of the culprit. The judges in ordinary cases could change their opinion prior to giving the final and collective decision; but in a capital charge they were only permitted to change it if at first they had intended to vote for a con viction. An ordinary trial, if commenced in the morning, might be continued during the evening; in a capital issue the proceedings must cease and the sitting be suspended at sunset. An ordinary charge could be heard and adjudicated upon in one day; in a capital