★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<head>EXEMPTIONS NECESSITY <hi rend="superscript">+ 1</hi></head> <p><note>+Physical compulsion comes<lb/>under the question of Intent.</note></p> <p>We now come to a 4th head of General Exemption still [continuing <add>taking</add> our course <unclear>with</unclear><lb/>the principle of utility for our guide [under the conduct of which] the clouds <unclear>with</unclear><lb/> which <add>by</add> a <unclear>tendrous </unclear> casuistry had <add>been</add> <sic>envelopped</sic> the subject <add>still <del>are dissipated</del></add> vanish before us. <add>from around our path</add></p> <p> To give the Term "necessity" (a term unhappily become vague from the variety of <unclear><add>senses</add></unclear><lb/>in which it has been employed) a precise and intelligent signification as applied to the<lb/> subject of Jurisprudence — we must define it — <hi rend="underline">A <add><del>particular</del>/moral +</add></hi> <note>+ Moral in contradistinction to physical</note> <hi rend="underline">force impelling to the commission of<lb/>obnoxious Act superior to the [general] force applied by the Laws to restrain from <add>it</add></hi></p> <p><note>Another reason, too, is, the obnoxious<lb/> act itself (for we must not here call it<lb/> the crime) is <del><gap/> <add>stripped</add></del> divested, by the<lb/> circumstances which losing the case<lb/> under the head of necessity, of those<lb/> effects [consequences] in which reside<lb/> by much the largest share of its<lb/> malignity: viz: the mischief<lb/> of the 2<hi rend="superscript">d</hi> & 3<hi rend="superscript">d</hi> orders.</note></p> <p><note><hi rend="underline">Limits</hi> of this topic — none</note></p> <p><add>admitting</add> This definition if admitted <add>we have written the compass of it</add> — includes all the doctrine on the subject. Wherever such <add> In whatever general</add> <lb/>force subsists, it is evident punishment [the force <add>that latter force</add> of the Laws] becomes useless & <gap/><lb/>In pursuance of this doctrine, we may lay down as a general <del>rule</del> ground of <sic>requittal</sic><lb/>in <del>any</del> <add>every</add> case whatsoever, the <add>a man's</add> proving to the satisfaction of the Jury that he would have <add>must <unclear>suffer</unclear></add><lb/> <del>been killed if he</del> <add> death or irreparable/[or maimed] corporal mischief ‡</add> had not done it: for the utmost <add>worst</add> that could happened to him from the <add>violation</add><lb/> | <head>EXEMPTIONS NECESSITY <hi rend="superscript">+ 1</hi></head> <p><note>+Physical compulsion comes<lb/> | ||
under the question of Intent.</note></p> | |||
<p>We now come to a 4th head of General Exemption still [continuing <add>taking</add> our course <unclear>with</unclear><lb/> | |||
the principle of utility for our guide [under the conduct of which] the clouds <unclear>with</unclear><lb/> | |||
which <add>by</add> a <unclear>tendrous </unclear> casuistry had <add>been</add> <sic>envelopped</sic> the subject <add>still <del>are dissipated</del></add> vanish before us. <add>from around our path</add></p> | |||
<p> To give the Term "necessity" (a term unhappily become vague from the variety of <unclear><add>senses</add></unclear><lb/> | |||
in which it has been employed) a precise and intelligent signification as applied to the<lb/> | |||
subject of Jurisprudence — we must define it — <hi rend="underline">A <add><del>particular</del>/moral +</add></hi> <note>+ Moral in contradistinction to physical</note> <hi rend="underline">force impelling to the commission of<lb/> | |||
obnoxious Act superior to the [general] force applied by the Laws to restrain from <add>it</add></hi></p> | |||
<p><note>Another reason, too, is, the obnoxious<lb/> | |||
act itself (for we must not here call it<lb/> | |||
the crime) is <del><gap/> <add>stripped</add></del> divested, by the<lb/> | |||
circumstances which losing the case<lb/> | |||
under the head of necessity, of those<lb/> | |||
effects [consequences] in which reside<lb/> | |||
by much the largest share of its<lb/> | |||
malignity: viz: the mischief<lb/> | |||
of the 2<hi rend="superscript">d</hi> & 3<hi rend="superscript">d</hi> orders.</note></p> | |||
<p><note><hi rend="underline">Limits</hi> of this topic — none</note></p> | |||
<p><add>admitting</add> This definition if admitted <add>we have written the compass of it</add> — includes all the doctrine on the subject. Wherever such <add> In whatever general</add> <lb/> | |||
force subsists, it is evident punishment [the force <add>that latter force</add> of the Laws] becomes useless & <gap/><lb/> | |||
In pursuance of this doctrine, we may lay down as a general <del>rule</del> ground of <sic>requittal</sic><lb/> | |||
in <del>any</del> <add>every</add> case whatsoever, the <add>a man's</add> proving to the satisfaction of the Jury that he would have <add>must <unclear>suffer</unclear></add><lb/> | |||
<del>been killed if he</del> <add> death or irreparable/[or maimed] corporal mischief ‡</add> had not done it: for the utmost <add>worst</add> that could happened to him from the <add>violation</add><lb/> | |||
of the Law was the being put to death, <add>by course of Law</add> an event distant & precarious, <gap/> <add>while that</add> <lb/> | |||
<del>the other branches of the alternative was</del> <add>consequent upon it's observance was/is upon the supposition</add> instant & certain. All the effect therefore <add>that</add><lb/> | |||
the <add>execution of the</add> Law could have in such a case would be the production of <add>just</add> so much more <add>clear</add> misery<lb/> | |||
than would have existed without it: the misery here occasioned by the punishment standing <add><unclear>singly compensated:</unclear></add> <lb/> | |||
which brings the <del>execution of the</del> Law <add>here as well as in the preceding topics</add> in all such <del>cases</del> <add>instances</add> within the — — — — —<lb/> | |||
case of inexpediency.</p> | |||
<p><note>This will afford a subject for<lb/> | |||
Question to be submitted in any case<lb/> | |||
to a Jury on the part of the <sic>Def<hi rend="superscript">t</hi></sic><lb/> | |||
<add>in these Terms</add> viz. Would he have been killed<lb/> | |||
<add>for not doing it</add> if he had not done <hi rend="underline">it</hi>? (viz: the<lb/> | |||
obnoxious act supposed to have been<lb/> | |||
above specified).</note></p> | |||
<p><note>If it were not for this, the killing of<lb/> | |||
a Burglar &c would not be defensible <add>justifiable</add>:<lb/> | |||
for <del>the p</del> <add> to answer</add> the purposes at<lb/> | |||
least the full purposes of the Law<lb/> | |||
he ought to be forthcoming <unclear>alive</unclear><lb/> | |||
to serve by his punishment for an <lb/> | |||
example.</note></p> | |||
<p><del><sic>S<hi rend="superscript">r</hi></sic> Matthew Hale starts by way of argument</del> <add>There is</add> a case not very likely to happen, <add>which</add> <lb/> | |||
never actually has happened that I know of in this country, <add> started by <sic>S<hi rend="superscript">r</hi></sic> Matthew Hale by way of argument which <del>he</del> decides <del>it</del></add> <del>for the sake of deciding</del> it in<lb/> | |||
opposition to these principles — "If <add> says he</add> a man (<del>says that <unclear>killer</unclear> </del> be desperately assaulted, & <lb/> | |||
cannot otherwise escape, unless to satisfy his assailants fury he will kill an innocent<lb/> | |||
person <del><gap/> person</del> then present, the fear & actual force will not <sic>acquitt</sic> him <add>of</add> <lb/> | |||
the Crime & punishment of murder, if he <sic>committ</sic> the fact; <hi rend="underline">for he ought rather to <add> die</add><lb/> | |||
himself, than kill an innocent:</hi> but if he cannot otherwise save his won life the<lb/> | |||
Law permits him in his own defence to kill the assailant; <del>for by the violence of <lb/> | |||
assault</del> I know not any thing more trifling than an "ought" or an "ought <unclear>not</unclear>" </p> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} |
EXEMPTIONS NECESSITY + 1
+Physical compulsion comes
under the question of Intent.
We now come to a 4th head of General Exemption still [continuing taking our course with
the principle of utility for our guide [under the conduct of which] the clouds with
which by a tendrous casuistry had been envelopped the subject still are dissipated vanish before us. from around our path
To give the Term "necessity" (a term unhappily become vague from the variety of senses
in which it has been employed) a precise and intelligent signification as applied to the
subject of Jurisprudence — we must define it — A particular/moral + + Moral in contradistinction to physical force impelling to the commission of
obnoxious Act superior to the [general] force applied by the Laws to restrain from it
Another reason, too, is, the obnoxious
act itself (for we must not here call it
the crime) is stripped divested, by the
circumstances which losing the case
under the head of necessity, of those
effects [consequences] in which reside
by much the largest share of its
malignity: viz: the mischief
of the 2d & 3d orders.
Limits of this topic — none
admitting This definition if admitted we have written the compass of it — includes all the doctrine on the subject. Wherever such In whatever general
force subsists, it is evident punishment [the force that latter force of the Laws] becomes useless &
In pursuance of this doctrine, we may lay down as a general rule ground of requittal
in any every case whatsoever, the a man's proving to the satisfaction of the Jury that he would have must suffer
been killed if he death or irreparable/[or maimed] corporal mischief ‡ had not done it: for the utmost worst that could happened to him from the violation
of the Law was the being put to death, by course of Law an event distant & precarious, while that
the other branches of the alternative was consequent upon it's observance was/is upon the supposition instant & certain. All the effect therefore that
the execution of the Law could have in such a case would be the production of just so much more clear misery
than would have existed without it: the misery here occasioned by the punishment standing singly compensated:
which brings the execution of the Law here as well as in the preceding topics in all such cases instances within the — — — — —
case of inexpediency.
This will afford a subject for
Question to be submitted in any case
to a Jury on the part of the Deft
in these Terms viz. Would he have been killed
for not doing it if he had not done it? (viz: the
obnoxious act supposed to have been
above specified).
If it were not for this, the killing of
a Burglar &c would not be defensible justifiable:
for the p to answer the purposes at
least the full purposes of the Law
he ought to be forthcoming alive
to serve by his punishment for an
example.
Sr Matthew Hale starts by way of argument There is a case not very likely to happen, which
never actually has happened that I know of in this country, started by Sr Matthew Hale by way of argument which he decides it for the sake of deciding it in
opposition to these principles — "If says he a man (says that killer be desperately assaulted, &
cannot otherwise escape, unless to satisfy his assailants fury he will kill an innocent
person person then present, the fear & actual force will not acquitt him of
the Crime & punishment of murder, if he committ the fact; for he ought rather to die
himself, than kill an innocent: but if he cannot otherwise save his won life the
Law permits him in his own defence to kill the assailant; for by the violence of
assault I know not any thing more trifling than an "ought" or an "ought not"
Identifier: | JB/063/163/002"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 63. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
063 |
law in general |
||
163 |
book ist offences in general exemptions necessity |
||
002 |
|||
text sheet |
2 |
||
recto |
/ d1 |
||
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::[gr with crown motif] [britannia with shield motif]]] |
||
20352 |
|||