JB/063/034/002: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/063/034/002: Difference between revisions

Keithompson (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
TB Editor (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''[{{fullurl:JB/063/034/002|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/063/034/002|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


 
<p>A Priviligiam and an ex post facto Law <lb/>
 
<p>A Priviligium and an ex post facto Law <lb/>
are not the same thing: they are very different <lb/>
are not the same thing: they are very different <lb/>
care must be taken not to confound them<lb/>
care must be taken not to confound them<lb/>
Line 11: Line 8:
Law, declared against a priviligiam, without<lb/>
Law, declared against a priviligiam, without<lb/>
knowing what it meant</p>
knowing what it meant</p>
The Waltham Black Act was a priviligium:
but it was not an ex post facto Law. [/Out] All
Acts of ??????? are strictly Privilegia.
'To speak the truth [/every great] [x/the great] part of the
in the manner legislation has been conducted hitherto
Laws we made, are in a manner Priviligia.
For an Ex post-facto Law [x/Priviligium] to be justifiable, it
must appear that the mischief of the act made
penal by it is greater than the mischief of the
example of the Law.
The mischief of the example of the Law con-
sists in the idea of insecurity [/the pain of apprehension] which it
serves to spread among the people. For that
pain not to be a pure? evil, for it to operate


[page break]
<p>The Waltham Black Act was a priviligiam:<lb/>
[RIGHT SIDE]
but it was not an ex post facto Law. <add>Our</add> All <lb/>
only as a restriction of greater evil, for it
Acts of Attainder are strictly Privilegia.<lb/>
to rest only on those few fromwhom a
To speak the truth <add>a very great</add> <del>the greatest</del> part of the<lb/>
greater evil was otherwise to be apprehended
in the manner legislation has been conducted hitherto <lb/>
the following conditions must be observed.+ [+ attended to]
Laws we make, are in a manner Priviligia.</p>
It must be [x/???] [/made in] contemplation
<p>For an <add>Ex post-facto Law</add> <del>Priviligium</del> to be justifiable, it<lb/>
of some mischief. It is in fact always pro-
must appear that the mischief of the act made<lb/>
posed? to be made in contemplation of some  
penal by it is greater than the mischief of the <lb/>
mischief: For Legislator xxx he he who he
example of the Law.</p>
may is neither so weak nor so shamefaced
 
tp ...  
<p>The mischief of the example of the Law consists <lb/>
in the idea of insecurity <add>the pain of apprehension</add> which it <lb/>
serves to spread among the people. For that<lb/>
pain not to be a pure? evil, for it to operate<lb/><pb/>
 
only as a restriction of greater evil, for it<lb/>
to rest only on those few from whom a<lb/>
greater evil was otherwise to be apprehended<lb/>
<note>+ attended to</note> the following conditions must be observed.+</p>
 
<p>It must be <add>made in</add> <del>founded another</del> contemplation<lb/>
of some mischief. It is in fact always professed<lb/>
to be made in contemplation of some <lb/>
mischief: For Legislator <del><gap/></del> be he who he<lb/>
may is neither so weak nor so shamefaced<lb/>
to. .</p>.


That Mischief is the product of an Act + [+ of the same king as] either
<p>That Mischief is the product of an Act <add>[+]</add> either<lb/>
performed already or only apprehended.
<note>[+] of the same <lb/>kind as</note> performed already or only apprehended.<lb/>
If [/of an act] performed already, then it is [x/???] [/either
If <add>of an act</add> performed already, there it is <add>either become</add> <del>either become</del><lb/>
cause [x/that not] [/xan] was not a crime before, or  
<add><del>the on account of a deficiency of</del> <gap/></add><del>that not</del> <add>an</add> was not a crime before, or <lb/>
[mn/an act of the description of that in question]
<note>an act of the description <lb/>of that in <lb/>question</note> tho a crime not sufficiently penal: or that <lb/>
tho a crime not sufficiently penal: or that aa crime and sufficiently penal, ... the act  
a crime and sufficiently penal, <del>those</del> the act <lb/>
in question was done under circumstances that
in question was done under circumstances that<lb/>
left not sufficient evidence of its having been
left not sufficient evidence of its having been<lb/>
committed.
committed.</p>
An Ex-post-facto Law is therefore made


[page break] [bottom left now]
<p>An <foreign>Ex-post-facto</foreign> Law is therefore made<lb/>
<pb/>


to remedy? a supposed defect either in the  
to supply a supposed defect either in the <lb/>
legislative department or the Judiciary.
legislative department or the Judiciary.<lb/>
If an Ex post-facto [/Law] is justifiable at all
If an <foreign>Ex post-facto</foreign> <add>Law</add> is justifiable at all<lb/>
under any of the foregoing circumstances
under any of the foregoing circumstances<lb/>
if it is on this ground that the impunity
it is on this ground that the impunity<lb/>
of the offendor viz., such a degree of
of the offender viz., such a degree of<lb/>
impuunity as would exhibit were it not for  
impunity as would subsist were it not for <lb/>
the Law is an encouragement to others
the Law is an encouragement to others<lb/>
to committ all such other mischievous acts
to <sic>committ</sic> all such other mischievous acts<lb/>
whatever they may be as are not yet
whatever they may be as are not yet<lb/>
provided with [x/the required?] [/sufficient] punishment: and ti must appear that the probable evil  
provided with <del>the proper</del> <add>sufficient</add> punishment: <lb/>
of such indetermined acts is greater than  
and it must appear that the probable evil <lb/>
the probable evil consisting in the danger
of such undetermined acts is greater than <lb/>
of the abuse of Lovers? of this statute?; that is the applying them to [x/Law?] persons not guil-
the probable evil consisting in the danger<lb/>
-ty of mischievous acts [/at all], or not guilty otherwere
of the abuse of Laws of this stamp; that <lb/>
those of acts [x/which being ??? for which they
is the applying them to <del>Law</del>  persons not guilty <lb/>
are already ??? to [/suffer] an adequate punish-
of mischievous acts <add>at all</add>, or not guilty otherwise<lb/>
-ment by the Laws ????.
those of acts <del>which being already</del> for which they<lb/>
are already liable to <del>suffer</del> an adequate punishment <lb/>
by the Laws subsisting.</p>
&#x2014;<lb/>
<note>INTROD> PRIVILEGIA X Export-facto Laws X <del>Recog</del>[BR]|[ ]<del>nizances</del>.</note>
<pb/>


[page break bottom right]
<p>In these cases one sees of <add>such a</add> <del>the</del> Law is justifiable <lb/>
it is justifiable on the score of its'<lb/>
producing pain in the party against whom <lb/>
it is levelled: because it is the observation<lb/>
of that pain <add>in that person</add> that is to produce it's effect <lb/>
in others.</p>


In these cases one sees? of [/such a] px/the] Law is justi-
<p>If the obnoxious act be not yet <hi rend="underline">done</hi> but<lb/>
-fiable it is justifiable on the ??? of its
only <hi rend="underline">apprehended</hi> the Law is not justifiable<lb/>
producing pain in the party against whom
on the <unclear>sense</unclear> of it's producing pain: the<lb/>
it is levelled: because it is the observation
<add>purpose of the Law</add> business is to prevent a person's doing a <lb/>
of that pain? [/in that person] that is to produce its effect
mischief, and that person's only: for as to<lb/>
in others.
other persons <del>that may</del> in whom the propensity<lb/>
If the obnoxious act be not yet done but
and opportunities are not as yet found the<lb/>
only apprehended the Law is not justifiable
purpose may be answer'd as well by a<lb/>
on the reason? of it's producing pain: the
Law in the common way.</p>
[/purpose of the Law] business is to prevent a person's doing a mischief, and that person's only: for as to
other persons [x/that may] in whom the propensities
and opportunities are not as yet formed the
purpose may be answered as well by a
Law in the common way.
A [/certain] pain is beneficiary? [/to guard?] for restraint
produces pain; but all pain besides what is
necessary to produce the kind of [/disablement] restraint
deemed sufficient in the case in question
is beside the purpose. It is as much misery in waste


[BOTTOM HEADING]
<p>A <add>certain</add> pain is necessary <del>to prod</del> for restraint<lb/>
INTROD. PRIVILEGIA x Ex post-facto Laws x [x/ ??? nizances?]
produces pain; but all pain besides what is<lb/>
necessary to produce the kind of <add>disablement</add> restraint<lb/>
deemed sufficient in the case in question<lb/>
is beside the purpose. It is as much misery <add>in waste</add></p>




<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}}

Latest revision as of 14:54, 15 June 2020

Click Here To Edit

A Priviligiam and an ex post facto Law
are not the same thing: they are very different
care must be taken not to confound them
Cicero who had sufferd by an ex post-facto
Law, declared against a priviligiam, without
knowing what it meant

The Waltham Black Act was a priviligiam:
but it was not an ex post facto Law. Our All
Acts of Attainder are strictly Privilegia.
To speak the truth a very great the greatest part of the
in the manner legislation has been conducted hitherto
Laws we make, are in a manner Priviligia.

For an Ex post-facto Law Priviligium to be justifiable, it
must appear that the mischief of the act made
penal by it is greater than the mischief of the
example of the Law.

The mischief of the example of the Law consists
in the idea of insecurity the pain of apprehension which it
serves to spread among the people. For that
pain not to be a pure? evil, for it to operate

---page break---
only as a restriction of greater evil, for it
to rest only on those few from whom a
greater evil was otherwise to be apprehended
+ attended to the following conditions must be observed.+

It must be made in founded another contemplation
of some mischief. It is in fact always professed
to be made in contemplation of some
mischief: For Legislator be he who he
may is neither so weak nor so shamefaced
to. .

.

That Mischief is the product of an Act [+] either
[+] of the same
kind as
performed already or only apprehended.
If of an act performed already, there it is either become either become
the on account of a deficiency of that not an was not a crime before, or
an act of the description
of that in
question
tho a crime not sufficiently penal: or that
a crime and sufficiently penal, those the act
in question was done under circumstances that
left not sufficient evidence of its having been
committed.

An Ex-post-facto Law is therefore made

---page break---
to supply a supposed defect either in the
legislative department or the Judiciary.
If an Ex post-facto Law is justifiable at all
under any of the foregoing circumstances
it is on this ground that the impunity
of the offender viz., such a degree of
impunity as would subsist were it not for
the Law is an encouragement to others
to committ all such other mischievous acts
whatever they may be as are not yet
provided with the proper sufficient punishment:
and it must appear that the probable evil
of such undetermined acts is greater than
the probable evil consisting in the danger
of the abuse of Laws of this stamp; that
is the applying them to Law persons not guilty
of mischievous acts at all, or not guilty otherwise
those of acts which being already for which they
are already liable to suffer an adequate punishment
by the Laws subsisting.


INTROD> PRIVILEGIA X Export-facto Laws X Recog[BR]|[ ]nizances.
---page break---

In these cases one sees of such a the Law is justifiable
it is justifiable on the score of its'
producing pain in the party against whom
it is levelled: because it is the observation
of that pain in that person that is to produce it's effect
in others.

If the obnoxious act be not yet done but
only apprehended the Law is not justifiable
on the sense of it's producing pain: the
purpose of the Law business is to prevent a person's doing a
mischief, and that person's only: for as to
other persons that may in whom the propensity
and opportunities are not as yet found the
purpose may be answer'd as well by a
Law in the common way.

A certain pain is necessary to prod for restraint
produces pain; but all pain besides what is
necessary to produce the kind of disablement restraint
deemed sufficient in the case in question
is beside the purpose. It is as much misery in waste



Identifier: | JB/063/034/002"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

034

Info in main headings field

introd. privilegia & ex post-facto laws

Image

002

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

c1

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

[[watermarks::gr [crown motif] [britannia with shield motif]]]

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

20223

Box Contents

UCL Home » Transcribe Bentham » Transcription Desk
  • Create account
  • Log in