4. Another provision of law which has of criminals to escape just punishment. It enabled many guilty persons to escape is may possibly in a few instances have saved that which gives to persons jointly indicted an innocent man from undeserved punish for a particular crime the right to separate ment, but the impunity that it has given to trials. . . . actual criminals has undoubtedly caused the 5. ["The gross abuses that exist owing death or injury of many times the number of to the readiness of appellate courts to grant those whom it has judiciously shielded. . . . new trials in criminal cases" should be It is in the interest of justice that if the jury ended.] before whom he is tried are satisfied of his 6. There is another technical rule in crim guilt by the fair preponderance of evidence inal pleading which should be repealed. It is he should be convicted. thus stated by the Court of Appeals of New 2. Another rule which grew up during York, in People v. Stedeker: the Draconic legislation of the past was that "An exception in a statute must be nega it was better that ten guilty men should es tived in pleading, while a proviso need not." cape than that one innocent man should be In this particular case the application of convicted. This maxim overlooked entirely this technical rule discharged the criminal. the duty of the State to give protection to the What possible reason in the nature of the innocent men, who were likely to suffer from case can be given for .the distinction thus the escape of the ten guilty culprits, who, em stated by the court? In all cases it should be boldened by impunity, would feel free to prey enough that the indictment state the crime upon the community. These two maxims with clearness sufficient to enable the defend may be justly said to have caused the death ant to understand the charge. All matters of manifold more innocent persons than they of defense or exception should be left for the have protected. . . . proof. 3. One cause of delay in the trials of criminals and of punishment of crime was "Тик Need of Creating Advocates or De recently stated by Mr. Justice Woodward, of fenders for the Accused" is strongly urged the Supreme Court of New York: in the Canadian ¿art1 Journal for April, by "It is impracticable in most communities W. D. Sutherland, who says: to assemble a grand jury offener than three At present, while there remain greatly pre or four times a year. If the crime is com ponderating advantages on the side of the mitted immediately after the sitting of one Crown, no one can tell how any trial might Grand Jury, the criminal, if apprehended, result if only the Crown stood on something usually has from three to four months before like the same footing in the contest and pos another assembles and before he can be sessed only a parity, or as nearly as possible indicted. Until this time he cannot be law a parity, of advantages with the prisoner. fully tried. Then, for the first time he is formally charged with the crime, and he is That such an officer as suggested is re then entitled to a reasonable opportunity to quired cannot be doubted by any who give procure counsel. If he is unable to do so, the the question the least consideration. Those court assigns counsel. In such a case the learned in the criminal law and skilled in all counsel may be entirely unprepared to deal the ways and arts of the accomplished with the defense, and a decent regard for the j pleader should be selected and set apart rights of his client compels the granting of solely for the work, whose duty it should be sufficient time to enable counsel to look into 1o assume the responsibility of the defence the case and determine upon a line of de of prisoners ab initia; i.e., as soon as they fense. In the meantime the court adjourns should be apprehended. No consideration and the case of necessity goes over until the of what it will cost the country should be al court reconvenes, which may be three or lowed for a moment to enter into the ques finir months hence." tion.
