If we look into history we shall find that laws are conventions between men in a state of freedom. By justice we understand nothing more than the bond which is necessary to keep the interest of individuals united, without which men would return to their original state of barbarity. All punishments which exceed the necessity of preserving this bond are unjust in their nature.
The result of any punishment should be no other than prevention a criminal from doing further injury to society, and prevention others from committing the like offence. Therefore there ought to be chosen such punishments and such modes of inflicting them that make the strongest and most lasting impressions on the minds of others, with the least torment to the body of the criminal.
The torture of a criminal during the course of his trial is a cruelty consecrated by custom in most nations. It is used with an intent either to make him confess in his crime, or to explain some contradiction into which he had been led during his examination, or discover his accomplices, or for some kind of metaphysical and incomprehensible purgation of infamy, or, finally, in order to discover other crimes of which he is not accused of, but of which he may be guilty.
No man can be judged a criminal until he is found guilty; nor can society take from him the public protection until it has been proved that he has violated the conditions on which it was granted. In the eye of the law, every man is innocent until his crime has been proved. Crimes are more effectually prevented by the certainty than the severity of punishment.
The more cruel the punishments become, the more hardened and insensible people turn to be. All severity is superfluous, and therefore tyrannical.
The death penalty is pernicious to society, it is the example of barbarity. If the passions, or the necessity of war, have taught men to shed blood of their fellow creatures, the laws, which are intended to moderate the ferocity of mankind, should not increase it by examples of barbarity. It is even more horrible that this punishment is usually attended with formal pageantry. Isn't it absurd, that the laws, which detest and punish homicide, should, in order to prevent murder, publicly commit murder themselves?
It is better to prevent crimes than to punish them. This should be the fundamental principle of any good legislation.
The result of any punishment should be no other than prevention a criminal from doing further injury to society, and prevention others from committing the like offence. Therefore there ought to be chosen such punishments and such modes of inflicting them that make the strongest and most lasting impressions on the minds of others, with the least torment to the body of the criminal.
The torture of a criminal during the course of his trial is a cruelty consecrated by custom in most nations. It is used with an intent either to make him confess in his crime, or to explain some contradiction into which he had been led during his examination, or discover his accomplices, or for some kind of metaphysical and incomprehensible purgation of infamy, or, finally, in order to discover other crimes of which he is not accused of, but of which he may be guilty.
No man can be judged a criminal until he is found guilty; nor can society take from him the public protection until it has been proved that he has violated the conditions on which it was granted. In the eye of the law, every man is innocent until his crime has been proved. Crimes are more effectually prevented by the certainty than the severity of punishment.
The more cruel the punishments become, the more hardened and insensible people turn to be. All severity is superfluous, and therefore tyrannical.
The death penalty is pernicious to society, it is the example of barbarity. If the passions, or the necessity of war, have taught men to shed blood of their fellow creatures, the laws, which are intended to moderate the ferocity of mankind, should not increase it by examples of barbarity. It is even more horrible that this punishment is usually attended with formal pageantry. Isn't it absurd, that the laws, which detest and punish homicide, should, in order to prevent murder, publicly commit murder themselves?
It is better to prevent crimes than to punish them. This should be the fundamental principle of any good legislation.
ПЕРЕКЛАД
Якщо зазирнути в історію, ми побачимо, що закони по суті є умовності між людьми в стані свободи. Під справедливістю ми розуміємо узи, які необхідно зберігають інтереси людей об'єднаними, без яких люди повернуться до попереднього стану варварства. Усі покарання, які перевищують необхідність збереження зв'язку з цим, є за своєю природою несправедливими.
Кінцевою метою покарання є не що інше, як запобігання нанесення злочинцем нового шкоди суспільству, і перешкоджання подібних злочинів. Отже, повинні бути обрані таке покарання і такі способи нанесення їх, які зроблять найсильніші і незабутні враження на розуми інших людей, з найменшою борошном для злочинця.
Тортури злочинця в ході судового процесу над ним є жорстоким освяченим звичаєм в більшості країн. Вони використовуються з наміром або змусити його зізнатися в злочині, або пояснити якесь протиріччя, в ході його розгляду, або відкрити його спільників, або для якогось метафізичного і незрозумілого очищення від ганьби, або, нарешті, для того, щоб виявити та інші злочини, за якими його не звинувачували, але в яких він може бути винним.
Жодна людина не може бути засудженим, поки він не був визнаний винним, і не може суспільство забрати у нього захист, поки не було доведено, що він порушив умови, на яких вона була надана. З точки зору закону, кожна людина невинний, поки злочин не було доведено. Злочини більш дієво запобігти, ніж бути впевненим в строгості покарання.
У тій же мірі як покарання ставали більш жорстокими, свідомість людей ставало більше загартованими і бездушним. Вся жорсткість є зайвою і, отже, тиранічної.
Смертна кара є згубною для суспільства, вона дає приклад варварства. Якщо пристрасті, або необхідність війни, вчить людей проливати кров ближніх, закони, які покликані пом'якшити жорстокість людства, не повинні збільшити його на прикладах жорстокості, тим більш жахливо, що цей вид покарання, як правило, пов'язаний з офіційними видовищами. Хіба це не абсурдно, що закони, які ненавидять і карають за вбивство, повинні, з тим щоб запобігти вбивства, публічно взяти на себе вбивство?
Краще не допускати вчинення злочинів, ніж карати їх. Це і є фундаментальний принцип хорошого законодавства.
No comments:
Post a Comment