Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/814

 Pafis Letter.

755

PARIS LETTER. THE question of enlarging the functions and powers of juries in France has come up, now, under the form of a Bill to enable them to use their judgment in discriminating between the degree of guilt of a prisoner and, then, themeslves to apply the punishment specified by the Law. Juries, it will lie remembered. in France, only sit in criminal matters and never in civil actions. At present the Code d'instruction Criminelle limits the jury to de clare whether the accused committed a crime under all the circumstances set forth in the indictment—aggravating circumstan ces; legal excuse; with full knowledge of what he was doing. The foreman of the jury is bound to read to the other members a somewhat long ex planation of their duties when they have re tired for deliberation. The main features of this explanation are that the law does not seek to know by what process of reasoning they may arrive at their conclusion but whether they have an absolute, personal conviction of the crime of the accused. The jury is forbidden to reflect upon the conse quences of their verdict; their mission is not to prosecute or punish. Such is, in brief, the position of the jury as defined by the Code. The new lull seeks to change all this. The supporters of the new movement assert that if the law makes a juror responsible for de ciding whether there were aggravating cir cumstances, etc., the intelligence of the juror should not be limited there. The juror should be requested to weigh in his own mind what the punishment should be, choos ing from the sliding scale of punishments provided for by the Code that one which he thinks suitable. "Let us take an example,'' says the "Ex pose des Motifs'- of the Bill,—"The jury is

OCTOBER, 1904. called upon to decide in the case of murder; the verdict of 'guilty' is rendered, but with recommendations to mercy. If the jury can impose a punishment according to their views, five years' prison may be meted out. At present, the Court can inflict twenty; years' penal servitude. But suppose the jury does not wish such a severe punishment carried out. Up to the time of fixing the punishment, the jury is all powerful and can render a verdict without being questioned why or upon what grounds. So, a guilty man may escape scot free and a villain be restored to society; while au innocent man may be, and some times is, wrongly punished. We are, today, in a position to have enlightened popular judges (judicial juries). To give a jury semi-judicial powers is to make them more sensible of their high responsibilities. There are two ways to effect this change : either make the jury 'a Judge' and consti tute the criminal judge a simple chairman of debates, or, make the judge and the jury a combination judicial machine.'' Such is the argument of the supporters of the new jury bill to be presented to the French Parliament next session. The ob jections to the proposed system appear to be obvious, and I do not think the Hill will stand much chance of becoming law; but it shows the tendency of the times in France to criticise the jury system. While, in America, there is, from time to time, a discussion as to increasing the num ber of judges in various States there is a movement, in France, to bring about a con trary result. A Bill is in committee for re port to Parliament, which looks like having a better chance of favorable consideration than the preceding jury reform measure. The number of judges of the Court of Ap peals has given rise to severe criticism.