Modifications of the Jury System. opinions of eleven by refusing to agree with them in a jury decision. It is difficult for two men to see things alike and it is still more difficult for twelve men to come to the same conclusion. This is well known to lawyers. They have agents whose business it is to look up jurors and learn their mental characteris tics and opinions on various subjects. In this way they are able to know whether or not they want these particular jurymen to sit on their cases. They know that one strongly prejudiced juror is enough to decide the case his way or else bring about a new trial by a •disagreement. It has been pointed out that persons of certain nationalities are famous for seldom changing their minds. One such person on a jury is enough to make the ver dict represent not so much deliberate con viction as the yielding of the others to the member of the obstinate nationality. It is claimed that the abolition of the unit rule will tend to prevent the fixing of juries. It is rare that anyone attempts to bribe more than one juror because under the present rule if one juror is bought that is all that is necessary. He will be able to bring about a disagreement. Under a rule that would allow two-thirds or three-fourtRs of the twelve to render a verdict, the person de siring to fix the jury would have to bribe at least three, a thing which is well nigh impos sible. It is not likely that there is very much bribing of juries, but that is no reason why all temptations in that direction should not be reduced to the minimum. Everyone with experience in courts of justice knows that jury verdicts are very of ten not the results of the unanimous opinions of the twelve men. The verdicts are very often compromises. This is especially the •case in actions for damages. Each juror has a different opinion as to the amount of money that should be paid for the wrong done. They are apt in such cases to strike an average and allow the result to stand as tHe verdict. It is not the opinion of anybody.
515
Compromises sometimes occur when several persons accused of crime are tried together. There are many things which induce the jurymen to compromise. Many of the jurors are actively engaged in business and are anxious to have the court matter settled so that they may return to their homes and af fairs. They are very apt, therefore, to yield a few points in order to get their liberty again. Still further the prospect of remain ing all night in the juryroom is not inviting to any man. Jurymen like all other human beings are fond of the comforts of home 4nd good quarters in which to rest for the night. They like to have their meals at regular times and places. When confronted with the alternatives of sitting up all night in the juryroom or yielding a little in what one be lieves is the right, most individuals, unless endowed with a constitution stronger than the majority of the race, and more firmly set in their principles, are apt to yield a little in what they think is the abstract justice of the case. Says Pope: "The hungry judges soon a sentence sign, And wretches hang that jurymen may dine." It has also been pointed out that the jury system with its unit rule puts a premium on obstinacy. The narrow-minded, obstinate and prejudiced man is given an exaggerated im portance as soon as he enters the juryroom. He has made up his mind, perhaps, before the trial began, and his mental apparatus is of such a character that he cannot be per suaded by the arguments of the majority. He therefore feels his importance and vill have the verdict his way or the jury will have to disagree. Cases are on record where one obstinate juror caused the disagreement and afterward went bragging about his achieve ment. Again the jurors are not all of the same vitality. An obstinate person with abounding health and strength will be able to wear out
