JB/035/004/001

Click Here To Edit

Trial by Jury —
the sanctuary of
regular that is of
expensive complicated &
expensive Justice

Lawyers interested
in sessions of Juries
1. because they
are always called
on them
2. because the
proceeding is
complicated
3. because the
result is uncertain

Libel

That a libel is any thing
which a man
would not like
to have said of
him

That the truth
of the imputation
convey'd by it
instead of being
a justification,
is not so much
an extenuation

Now we have
the
begging of the question
which is characteristic
of the new reasoning
of Blackstone
Jurymen or, to be
as are
when the question
is whether they are
so.

---page break---

Causes of its popularity.

1. 4 utility
2. 5 Antiquity. 3. 2 Present Relative utility
4 1 excellencies
5 6. Lawyers intracted
clogia.
6. Relative utility. 7 The only popular Jury
of the judic. establishment.
7 Its use to soften capital
punishment.

I would not
have them Judges
but masters of
the Judges

Pennsylvanians

Pennsylvanians
Will have a Jury
— Who are they afraid
of? what from the
jaws of what
monster is there
the Jury to save
them? What
Judge is there who
is not upon his
good behaviour.

The Committee
have killed the
Parliament and
they are frightened haunted
out of their wits
by these Ghosts.

2

Unless There would not
be so much as a
newspaper in England
nor a book
of history.
Unless inconsistency
were added
to absurdity

---page break---

If they had not done
their duty
broke their oath
they would not have
been of any use

When you have
bad laws will
an upright Judge
lessen the mischief
of them?
No — unless you
allow them to make
he will
use of his reason, he
makes the most
of it.

You pass good
laws — you establish
a constitution which
will ensure your
never having
any other than
good ones — and
you crown it with
a scheme of
judicature the
only use of which
is to turn your
laws into waste
paper which
is to render them
impotent &
ineffectual

---page break---

Causae, Alledged advantages

1 Death
What then would
you put the
lives of men citizens
into the hands
of a single Judge
without a Jury?
No, surely: nor
with one neither
Look at the arguments
for Juries:
the strongest of them
always build themselves
tacitly or
avowedly upon the
supposition of
capital punishment:
and because
you will
have capital
punishment, you
must have Juries.
All such These arguments
doubtless
have their weight:
these something
at the bottom of
them there is
undoubtedly:
what is it? That
trial by Jury is
a good mode of
trial? No: but
that capital death punishment
is a bad
mode of punishment.
That you
should try every
body by Juries?
No — but that you
should punish nobody
with death.

---page break---

Parallel

If you don't mean
the Jury should have
a negative upon
the Judge's discretion
why institute them?
If you do know
if amotion is a much
better. a Jury
can only put their
negative pro
comes another
Jury and is reduced
by the Judge
Power of Amotion
will afford no remedy
in an individual
instance.
But: an individual
instance is nothing

---page break---

The laws are complicated
and as
for the
complication You
add further complication.

Law and fact.
It must be the
legislator that
draws the line

The question of
law is to know,
whether the evidence
affords proof of a
fact that comes
under the description
of any the fact
described in the words of such
or such a part of
the law: But
to know that the
law must have existence — the words
of it must be given

---page break---

Causa popular

Sources of error
applying transferring notions
that were just
under the despotic
system to the system
of liberty —
Examples
1. Independence of
Judges.
2. Non-venality
of judicial offices

Answering a broad-bottomed
despotism.

No complaint of
terminus of Excise
ex Justices — a
sure proof of their
probity

Known improbity
of Juries in those
cases yet no complaint —
why
because no individual
is interested.

---page break---

Taking the notions of guilt
& innocence from the
Common Law
No innocent man
ever did or ever was
in danger of suffering
suffered in the Star-chamber.
Guilt
consisted in having
displeased the Star-chamber.
No man
suffered under the
Star chamber who
had not displesed
the Star-Chamber

Procedure as a means
to an end — It is
good in proportion
as it contributes to
that end. The end
of Procedure is the
conviction of the Guilty.
The end of Procedure
is not the
acquittal of the innocent.
No procedure
would accomplish that purpose
better than all the
procedure in the
world. The acquittal
of the innocent
is a condition
annexed to the
carrying on of procedure
to the pursuit
of its true end
but hurting is not
the end of going out
to fight — that end would
be better compassed
by staying at home

---page break---

The Jury trial was is
a bad means to the
end of Procedure.
The Star-Chamber trial
was a good one: a
better can not be devised.
But the
Star-Chamber exercised
legislation as
well as judication
and it concerned
them both at the
same time:
three things only
were wanting to
make the Star-Chamber
a good
Court — Unity,
Subjection to the
people and good
laws to execute.

Identifier: | JB/035/004/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 35.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	035	Main Headings	constitutional code; evidence; procedure code
Folio number	004	Info in main headings field	jury brouillon
Image	001	Titles
Category	rudiments sheet (brouillon)	Number of Pages	2
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	[[watermarks::l munn [britannia with shield emblem]]]
Marginals		Paper Producer	benjamin constant
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	10597
Box Contents