We naturally turned with sympathy towards the
prisoner.
We gave him the right of appeal on all matters of law through
all the courts of our States, and even into the courts of the
United States, while we allowed the People no right of appeal
at all. If the prisoner was convicted he could go on and test
the case all along the line,--if he was acquitted the People
had to rest satisfied. We stopped the mouth of the judge and
made it illegal for him to "sum up" the case or discuss the
facts to any extent. We clipped the wings of the prosecutor
and allowed him less latitude of expression than an English
judge. Then we gazed on the work of our intellects and said
it was good. If an ignorant jury acquitted a murderer under
the eyes of a gagged and helpless judge, we said that it was
all right and that it was better that ninety-nine guilty men
should escape than that one innocent man should be convicted.
Yes, better for whom? If another murderer, about whose guilt
the highest court in one of the States said there was no
possible doubt, secured three new trials and was finally
acquitted on the fourth, it merely demonstrated how perfectly
we safeguarded the rights of the individual.
Pages:
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273