153 Foreign Criminal Procedure Statutes” (“Anklagelseprincipen i nyaste utländska straffprocesslagar”). Like Ehrström, Montgomery stood clearly in favor of the accusatory principle. According to him, it was by way of the accusatory process that the judge is to build a “certain conviction” {“säker öfvertygelsc”). Montgomery, unlike Ehrström, does not expressly reveal his stance on the jury, but he seems hesitant about the institution. The public’s trust in the administration of justice must be built by way of publicity and orality of the procedure*-; the jury is not mentioned in this context. After Montgomery’s article on the purgatory oath, the matter was taken up as a discussion matter in Finland’s Legal Association. At the meetings of the association’s three local divisions, the central division clearly favored the abolition c:)f the purgatory oath while in the two smaller divisions the opinions were divided. Some of the members wanted directly to link the abolition of the purgatc»ry oath to an eradication of the legal rules of proof, a complete reform of the procedural system, an establishment of trial juries, or all of them.'*'* The local divisions were also asked whether the intermediary decisions — conditional acquittal and absolutio ab instantia - ought to be abolished. Aclear majority of the divisions and members thought that only two possibilities, acquittal or condemnation, should be available. Most of the members thought, however, that the intermediary decision types were so intimately linked to the existing rules of proof that the former could not be abolished without abrogating the latter as well.'*-'’ For Montgomery, the principles of orality and publicity did not always need to appear together with the jury. Montgomerv’s text, however, reveals the author’s sympathy for both principles. Although referring specifically to the accusatory principle, Montgomery’s position as to the theories of proof is unquestionable: “In every area of human knowledge, where one must come to grips with a thing’s existence or its quality, this notion of truth can only be a reached by first bringing the reasons for and against into the light of day, and by thereafter evaluating these reasons and circumstances free of any opinion of the thing established beforehand.”'**’ Montgomery 1880 p. 140. In “On the Purgatory Oath,” Montgomery mentions two possible remedies for the shortcomings of the existing criminal procedural system and as guarantees against arbitrariness of the judge: the jury and the publicity principle. The choice between the two is left open, however. Montgomer^• 1867 p. 15. Tidskrift 1867 pp. 156—157. Tidskrift 1865—1866 pp. 157—159. ■**’ “P.i hvarje omr.\de för menskligt vetande, der det gäller att komma till visshet om ett sakhållandes tillvaro samt om dess beskaffenhet, kan denna visshet om sanningen endast vara en frukt deraf att först skäl för och emot i möjligaste fullständigct bringas i dagen samt sedan att dessa skäl och omständigheter finna en pröfning, fri från hvarje förut fattad åsigt om saken”. Montgomery 1880 pp. 3, 137; see also Montgomer^■ 1867, especially pp. 14-15, in which the author condemns the purgatory oath, mquisitory principle and legal theory of proof.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=