Social and business considerations cause most men to go with the crowd, and in any case of importance it is easy for a jury to tell the feeling of the populace.  If the case has attracted much attention, the juror knows the prevailing ideas as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.  When he takes his seat in the box he almost always shares that feeling.  If the case is not one he has heard of or discussed, he can easily tell by the actions and surroundings of the court room how public feeling lies.  All lawyers know how readily men feel the sentiment of a court room and how much easier is the task when the sentiment is their way.  Juries are also apt to have an undue regard for the opinion of the judge.  In spite of the fact that it is their province to pass upon the facts, they are very watchful of all the judge says and does and are prone to decide a case as they believe the judge wishes it to be decided.  Even when the judge is not permitted to express any opinions on the facts involved, it is difficult for him to hide his real feelings, and when his desire is strong for either side it is easy to make his opinions known.

A jury is more apt to be unbiased and independent than a court, but they very seldom stand up against strong public clamor.  Judges naturally believe the defendant is guilty.  They feel that the fact that an indictment has been found is a strong presumption against the accused.  The judge regards himself as a part of the administration of justice and feels that it is a part of his duty to see that no guilty man escapes.  Generally, in the administration of the court he is very closely connected with the state’s attorney and naturally believes that the attorney would not have procured an indictment, much less pushed a trial, unless the defendant was guilty.

The whole atmosphere of the court at the time of the trial calls for a harsher and more drastic dealing with a defendant than would naturally prevail after the feeling has passed away.  For this reason, the pardoning power is given to the chief executive to correct errors or undue harshness after the legal proceedings have been finished.  Often after months or years, the persons or family who have suffered at the hands of the defendant feel like reversing their judgment or extending charity, and it is not unusual that the prosecutor and judge who conducted the case ask for leniency and a mitigation of the sentence is imposed.  So often is an appeal made and so frequently is it felt just to grant clemency, that this part of the duty of the chief executive has grown to be very burdensome and really impossible for him thoroughly to perform.  The policy of the law is further to give a prisoner some consideration and in cases of good behavior and mitigating circumstances to release him before the expiration of his time.  In most states this has called for the creating of a board of pardons and parole.  The statutes fixing penalties for certain offenses provide for a reduction of a certain number of weeks or months each year, but as a rule courts take this provision into consideration and figure out the net time they wish to give the defendant so that there is no clemency except through pardon or parole.