JB/063/152/002

Click Here To Edit

GEN. EXEMPTIONS INFANCYLimits of Topic as to
persons criminal act

The Topic of Exemption which I shall consider last
[Another General topic of Exemption] is Infancy. Now In respect [of [which this] to this we may in the
first place observe [is observable], but whereas in respect to all the others one may say lay down
that the question of their applicability is decided <add> answered peremptorily that they are applicable or not] Without by one or other of the contradictory number
of a disjunctive proposition, that is in more familiar language we may say of them [at
any given instance] either but they obtain in that a given instance or do not+, it is otherwise
in respect to this, the boundaries of which between the applicability & non-
applicability of which one
not naturally marked out by nature by any such contradictory proposition. They run into one another
by imperceptible degrees between which there is no partition set up by nature.

+ The case negligence may at
first seem an exception but is not; [but we shall
find that] however difficult may
be more in some cases for a man to
satisfy himself whether there was
negligence in the given transaction
much more for men to be satisfied
in the same manner, yet
when once that is done, & they
have concurred in the a proposition
concerning its presence in the case to
that proposition expresses itself
with certainly & is understood,
having a contradictory proposition
for its limit: so that when they
have once pronounced for instance
that there was no negligence the
absolution of the Culprit is
understood at once to follow: but which
is it can not be from its having
been pronounced, that is (laying out of
consideration the positive explanation
of given by of the Law) that he is
Young.Not proper to be decided by a jury
because they can not form a whole
judgment from such evidence as can
be laid before them - simplicity
too might be counterfeited for the
purposes

Thus to take for an example that topic when between this & which this distinction may seem
most questionable+. Many cases there are certainly in which, difficult as it is for a single
person to satisfy him whether negligence was or was not there was any negligence into the Act which where
produced the calamity in question, much more is it for 12 persons to satisfy themselves, in
the same manner & At the same time when that has been once done, & they have
concurred in a proposition expressing its affirmance or denial of its existence
the case, that proposition [expresses explains itself and] is understood, having a contradictory
Idea for its limit: so that thus where they have need pronounced that there was no
negligence the absolution of the Culprit person accused is understood at once to follow: which [it
cannot be from its having been pronounced that he is an Infant, that is
(laying) out of consideration the positive explanation given by the Law) that he is young — This proposition
has no correspondent contradictory idea; the contradiction between he is young
& he is not young as applied to practice being only apparent & in words; for two persons
might use them respectively both meaning the person spoken of to be of the
same age. In the first case instance, whatever natural ambiguity might have subsisted in the
case is cut off by [that form of] expression in which the decision: in the other, that ambiguity after the decision
remains just the same as it was did before.

As there is therefore no natural fixed partition in this case, the business is how to affix
by positive constitution, that shall correspond corresponding as near as may be with that central point that which may be supposed to
central to the shiftings of the moveable partition set up by nature. We will postpone
consideration of this for a moment, while we take a short review of the actual disposition
of the Law on this behalf.

Whatever natural ambiguity might have
the natural ambiguity subjected to the case is cured
that from of [the] expression in which
by a the decision pronounced concerning
it is comprized.
Contradiction is only apparent &
in words: for two persons might pro
into themselves that he was the other that he was not young be the to be the same age.

Identifier: | JB/063/152/002 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 63.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	063	Main Headings	law in general
Folio number	152	Info in main headings field	offences in general exemptions infancy
Image	002	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	2
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	/ c1
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	[[watermarks::[gr with crown motif] [britannia with shield motif]]]
Marginals		Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	20341
Box Contents