Note return — Chapter V

Judge Pitman then proceeds to argue that criminal trials without juries would be attended with disadvantages, because he thinks that judges would have, oftener than juries, that "reasonable doubt" which by law entitles the accused to an acquittal. This warrants one of two inferences: either the writer would have men convicted whose guilt is involved in "reasonable doubt," or he fears that the learning and experience of the bar and the bench tend to unfit the mind to weigh the evidence of guilt or innocence. It is curious that in a former number of the same Review, another learned writer expressed exactly the contrary opinion.10 Mr. Edward A. Thomas thinks that "judges are too much inclined to convict persons charged with criminal offences," and that juries are too much inclined to acquit them. And Judge Foster seemingly agrees with Mr. Thomas upon this point.