{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-11:laws-delay",
  "slug": "laws-delay",
  "title": "Law's Delay",
  "subtitle": "On the slowness of American justice.",
  "excerpt": "On the chronic slowness and expense of American civil justice — a practitioner's view from inside the profession.",
  "year": 1897,
  "volume": 11,
  "category": "Essay",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/laws-delay/",
  "wordCount": 764,
  "body": "THE object of a trial is not to convict—neither is it to acquit. The\nobject is to ascertain the truth by legal testimony and in accordance\nwith law.\n\nIn this country we give the accused the benefit of all reasonable\ndoubts. We insist that his guilt shall be really established by\ncompetent testimony.\n\nWe also allow the accused to take exceptions to the rulings of the judge\nbefore whom he is tried, and to the verdict of the jury, and to have\nthese exceptions passed upon by a higher court.\n\nWe also insist that he shall be tried by an impartial jury, and that\nbefore he can be found guilty all the jurors must unite in the verdict.\n\nSome people, not on trial for any crime, object to our methods. They\nsay that time is wasted in getting an impartial jury; that more time is\nwasted because appeals are allowed, and that by reason of insisting on a\nstrict compliance with law in all respects, trials sometimes linger for\nyears, and that in many instances the guilty escape.\n\nNo one, so far as I know, asks that men shall be tried by partial and\nprejudiced jurors, or that judges shall be allowed to disregard the law\nfor the sake of securing convictions, or that verdicts shall be allowed\nto stand unsupported by sufficient legal evidence. Yet they talk as\nif they asked for these very things. We must remember that revenge is\nalways in haste, and that justice can always afford to wait until the\nevidence is actually heard.\n\nThere should be no delay except that which is caused by taking the time\nto find the truth. Without such delay courts become mobs, before which,\ntrials in a legal sense are impossible. It might be better, in a city\nlike New York, to have the grand jury in almost perpetual session,\nso that a man charged with crime could be immediately indicted and\nimmediately tried. So, the highest court to which appeals are taken\nshould be in almost constant session, in order that all appeals might be\nquickly decided.\n\nBut we do not wish to take away the right of appeal. That right tends to\ncivilize the trial judge, reduces to a minimum his arbitrary power, puts\nhis hatreds and passions in the keeping and control of his intelligence.\nThat right of appeal has an excellent effect on the jury, because they\nknow that their verdict may not be the last word. The appeal, where the\naccused is guilty, does not take the sword from the State, but it is a\nshield for the innocent.\n\nIn England there is no appeal. The trials are shorter, the judges more\narbitrary, the juries subservient, and the verdict often depends on the\nprejudice of the judge. The judge knows that he has the last guess—that\nhe cannot be reviewed—and in the passion often engendered by the\nconflict of trial he acts much like a wild beast.\n\nThe case of Mrs. Maybrick is exactly in point, and shows how dangerous\nit is to clothe the trial judge with supreme power.\n\nWithout doubt there is in this country too much delay, and this, it\nseems to me, can be avoided without putting the life or liberty of\ninnocent persons in peril. Take only such time as may be necessary to\ngive the accused a fair trial, before an impartial jury, under and in\naccordance with the established forms of law, and to allow an appeal to\nthe highest court.\n\nThe State in which a criminal cannot have an impartial trial is not\ncivilized. People who demand the conviction of the accused without\nregard to the forms of law are savages.\n\nBut there is another side to this question. Many people are losing\nconfidence in the idea that punishment reforms the convict, or that\ncapital punishment materially decreases capital crimes.\n\nMy own opinion is that ordinary criminals should, if possible, be\nreformed, and that murderers and desperate wretches should be imprisoned\nfor life. I am inclined to believe that our prisons make more criminals\nthan they reform; that places like the Reformatory at Elmira plant and\ncultivate the seeds of crime.\n\nThe State should never seek revenge; neither should it put in peril the\nlife or liberty of the accused for the sake of a hasty trial, or by the\ndenial of appeal.\n\nIn my judgment, defective as our criminal courts and methods are, they\nare far better than the English.\n\nOur judges are kinder, more humane; our juries nearer independent, and\nour methods better calculated to ascertain the truth.\n"
}