JB/034/164/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/034/164/001: Difference between revisions

Keithompson (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto approved
 
(3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 9: Line 9:
<gap/> Adopted features</note><lb/>
<gap/> Adopted features</note><lb/>


<p><gap/> Continued from the f<gap/> first paragraphs of the <del><gap/></del> comme<gap/>tion<lb/>
<p><gap/> Continued from the four first paragraphs of the <del><gap/></del> comme<gap/><lb/>
the former plan</p>
the former plan</p>


<p>In the <del><gap/></del> case of the here proposed Quasi Jury the <del><gap/></del><lb/>
<p>In the <del><gap/></del> case of the here proposed Quasi Jury the <del>power</del><lb/>
influence <del>if</del><add>now</add> possessed by the Jury is lessened in one direction,<lb/>
influence <del>if</del><add>now</add> possessed by the Jury is lessened in one direction,<lb/>
augmented in another</p>
augmented in another</p>


<note>5 or 1<lb/>
<note>5 or 1<lb/>
design here<lb/>
Danger here<lb/>
1. Adopt apt Jury<lb/>
1. Adopt apt Jury<lb/>
features<lb/>
features<lb/>
2. Disused unapt d<hi rend="superscript">o</hi><lb/>
2. Discard unapt d<hi rend="superscript">o</hi><lb/>
3. Add apt new</note><lb/>
3. Add apt new</note><lb/>


Line 26: Line 26:
to retain<add><!-- pencil insert -->adopt</add> all the apt features of the Jury institution, <add>and discarding</add> <del>used</del> to discard<lb/>
to retain<add><!-- pencil insert -->adopt</add> all the apt features of the Jury institution, <add>and discarding</add> <del>used</del> to discard<lb/>
the unapt ones, and to add such <add>apt</add> new features as seemed <add>could be found</add> <del><gap/></del><lb/>
the unapt ones, and to add such <add>apt</add> new features as seemed <add>could be found</add> <del><gap/></del><lb/>
<del>to both forms</del> conducers to the ends of justice in both cases, is at<lb/>
<del>to both forms</del><add>apt with reference to the present purpose</add> conducers to the ends of justice in both cases, is at<lb/>
any rate in the present case</p>
any rate in the present case</p>


<note>6 or 2<lb/>
<note>6 or 2<lb/>
Apt: viz as to Quasi<lb/>
Apt: viz as to Quasi<lb/>
Jury: for one will be <sic>shewn</sic> which tho'<lb/>
Jury: for one will <lb/>
<add><gap/>ally<add>essentially</add></add> apt in Jury, would a<lb/>
be <sic>shewn</sic> which tho'<lb/>
Quasi Jury be any <gap/><lb/>
<add><gap/>ally<add>essentially</add></add> apt in Jure, would a<lb/>
Quasi Jury be mischievous<lb/>
[Add? This is <del>one</del><lb/>
[Add? This is <del>one</del><lb/>
<del>power of</del> a virtual negation<lb/>
<del>power of</del> a virtual negation<lb/>
Line 43: Line 44:
for one feature will be brought to view to which the beneficial<lb/>
for one feature will be brought to view to which the beneficial<lb/>
effects of the Jury system will it is believed be seen to be in great measure<lb/>
effects of the Jury system will it is believed be seen to be in great measure<lb/>
referab
referable, but from<add>by</add> which <del><gap/> but</del> if adopted into the here<lb/>
le, but from<add>by</add> which <del><gap/> but</del> if adopted into the here<lb/>
proposed institution, no effects but evil ones could be produced.</p>
proposed institution, no effects but evil ones could be produced.</p>
 
<note>7 or 3<lb/>
<gap/> difference. To <lb/>
Jury belongs, in a certain<lb/>
way decisive <lb/>
power as to the ultimate<lb/>
result of the suit:<lb/>
ex.gr. acquitted in<lb/>
a <del><gap/></del> penal suit.<lb/>
To a Quasi Jury, not</note><lb/>
<p>Between the Jury system and the proposed Quasi Jury system<lb/>
<p>Between the Jury system and the proposed Quasi Jury system<lb/>
the principal difference lies in this; <add><del><gap/></del></add> <del>Under the Jury system</del> <add>By</add> a Jury<lb/>
the principal difference lies in this; <add><del><gap/></del></add> <del>Under the Jury system</del> <add>By</add> a Jury<lb/>
Line 53: Line 61:
all criminal cases. For a Quasi-Jury no such decisive power<lb/>
all criminal cases. For a Quasi-Jury no such decisive power<lb/>
is allotted</p>
is allotted</p>
 
<note>8 or 4<lb/>
Only in one case<lb/>
have Quasi Jury decisive<lb/>
power: and thus<lb/>
it is not ultimately decisive.<lb/>
This is power of warranting<lb/>
Appeal, in case<lb/>
in which English law<lb/>
does not: viz. in cases<lb/>
in which it were given<lb/>
absolutely to defendant<lb/>
it would int<gap/>abit<gap/><lb/>
<gap/> <gap/></note><lb/>
<p>With the exception of an application which is not of the <unclear>offence</unclear><lb/>
<p>With the exception of an application which is not of the <unclear>offence</unclear><lb/>
of the system, a Quasi Jury has no <add>decisive</add> power <del>that can be called legal</del><lb/>
of the system, a Quasi Jury has no <add>decisive</add> power <del>that can be called legal</del><lb/>
Line 60: Line 80:
giving <add>or withholding</add> allowance to Appeal from the Immediate to the Appellate<lb/>
giving <add>or withholding</add> allowance to Appeal from the Immediate to the Appellate<lb/>
Judicatory, in cases where if <del>the</del> without this restriction the right<lb/>
Judicatory, in cases where if <del>the</del> without this restriction the right<lb/>
of appeal were left to the defendant, <add><del>a hand of</del><add></add>a very <gap/> load of certain</add> vexation and expence<lb/>
of appeal were left to the defendant, <add><del>a hand of</del><add>a very <gap/> load of certain</add></add>vexation and expence<lb/>
would be composed in prosecution witnesses and Jurymen in cases<lb/>
would be composed in prosecutors witnesses and Jurymen in cases<lb/>
where the <add>instances</add><del><gap/></del> of its being subservient to rectitude of decision<lb/>
where the <add>instances</add><del><gap/></del> of its being subservient to rectitude of decision<lb/>
would be rare in the extra<gap/> These cases are criminal ones:<lb/>
would be rare in the extreme. These cases are criminal ones:<lb/>
in none of which Appeal <del>is allowed</del> an application by a Jury<lb/>
in none of which Appeal <del>is allowed</del> on application by a Jury<lb/>
or otherwise is allowed by English law.</p>
or otherwise is allowed by English law.</p>
<note><!-- Marginal note in pencil -->[+] <gap/> and <gap/> to prosecutors, witnesses and Quasi Jurors: same for delay and chance of escape all convicts whose guilt was beyond doubt would appeal <gap/></note><lb/>


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

Latest revision as of 17:48, 20 October 2023

Click Here To Edit

1823. Sept. 10

Constitutional Code Ch Quasi Jury
Explicaty Observation
Adopted features

Continued from the four first paragraphs of the comme
the former plan

In the case of the here proposed Quasi Jury the power
influence ifnow possessed by the Jury is lessened in one direction,
augmented in another

5 or 1
Danger here
1. Adopt apt Jury
features
2. Discard unapt do
3. Add apt new

In the case framing of the proposed Quasi Jury, the object here been
to retainadopt all the apt features of the Jury institution, and discarding used to discard
the unapt ones, and to add such apt new features as seemed could be found
to both formsapt with reference to the present purpose conducers to the ends of justice in both cases, is at
any rate in the present case

6 or 2
Apt: viz as to Quasi
Jury: for one will
be shewn which tho'
ally<add>essentially</add> apt in Jure, would a
Quasi Jury be mischievous
[Add? This is one
power of a virtual negation
on laws with a
constitutional aspect.]
See below.]

By apt understand with reference to the here proposed institution:
for one feature will be brought to view to which the beneficial
effects of the Jury system will it is believed be seen to be in great measure
referable, but fromby which but if adopted into the here
proposed institution, no effects but evil ones could be produced.

7 or 3
difference. To
Jury belongs, in a certain
way decisive
power as to the ultimate
result of the suit:
ex.gr. acquitted in
a penal suit.
To a Quasi Jury, not

Between the Jury system and the proposed Quasi Jury system
the principal difference lies in this; Under the Jury system By a Jury
powers are possessed and exercised such as to a great extent are decisive
of the ultimate fate of the suit: power of acquittal for example in
all criminal cases. For a Quasi-Jury no such decisive power
is allotted

8 or 4
Only in one case
have Quasi Jury decisive
power: and thus
it is not ultimately decisive.
This is power of warranting
Appeal, in case
in which English law
does not: viz. in cases
in which it were given
absolutely to defendant
it would intabit

With the exception of an application which is not of the offence
of the system, a Quasi Jury has no decisive power that can be called legal
in contradistinction to moral: and in that case it is not ultimately
decisive. Of This power consists the exercise consists in allowing
giving or withholding allowance to Appeal from the Immediate to the Appellate
Judicatory, in cases where if the without this restriction the right
of appeal were left to the defendant, a hand of<add>a very load of certain</add>vexation and expence
would be composed in prosecutors witnesses and Jurymen in cases
where the instances of its being subservient to rectitude of decision
would be rare in the extreme. These cases are criminal ones:
in none of which Appeal is allowed on application by a Jury
or otherwise is allowed by English law.

[+] and to prosecutors, witnesses and Quasi Jurors: same for delay and chance of escape all convicts whose guilt was beyond doubt would appeal



Identifier: | JB/034/164/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 34.

Date_1

1823-09-10

Marginal Summary Numbering

5 or 1 - 8 or 4

Box

034

Main Headings

constitutional code

Folio number

164

Info in main headings field

constitutional code

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

b1 / c1 / d1

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

c wilmott 1819

Marginals

jeremy bentham

Paper Producer

andreas louriottis

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

1819

Notes public

ID Number

10438

Box Contents

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