JB/034/213/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts

JB/034/213/001: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto loaded
 
TB Editor (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
'''[{{fullurl:JB/034/213/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
'''[{{fullurl:JB/034/213/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]'''
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
<p>1824. June 26<lb/>
''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<head>Constitutional Code</head> <note>Ch. XVI. Quasi Jury</note></p>
 
<p>&#9758; Collect and exhibit the points of weakness or <hi rend="underline"></hi></p>
 
<p>The difference between the here proposed system and the established<lb/>
 
English System being thus wide, a natural question is<lb/>
if the former is good, whence came the general reputation <add>to what cause <del>was it</del> <gap/> is to be attributed</add> for<lb/>
goodness on the part of the latter?</p>
<p>The <unclear>answer</unclear> is – to three main causes.  1. the publicity <del>attached to it</del>.  2. <del>the</del> Jury trial.  3. interested <add>professional</add> <unclear>liquidation</unclear>.  By publicity and Jury trial put together it has been<lb/>
rendered relatively <add><del><gap/></del></add> good – in one word excellent.  But to<lb/>
constitute a thing <add>prevent a thing from being</add> excellent, <del>the lowest degree</del> <add>so far as any <gap/> <gap/></add> no degree of depravity<lb/>
can be sufficient so long as there is one other <gap/><lb/>
more depraved.</p>
<p>Of a system of <add>judicial</add> procedure considered <add>by itself</add> as such, the <gap/> <add>is <gap/></add><lb/>
consists in the degree in which it gives execution and <unclear>effect</unclear><lb/>
to the system of substantive law of which it is the instrument<lb/>
or appendage.  But if and so far as the system of substantive<lb/>
law is bad and <gap/> the better the procedure is<lb/>
in one sense the worse it will be in the other:  the worse<lb/>
it is in the one sense the better it will be in the other.  In<lb/>
proportion as the substantive system is mischievous, the <del>aptitude</del> <add>efficiency</add><lb/>
of the adjective system in relation to it will render that<lb/>
same adjective system mischievous:  the <del>inaptitude of it</del> <add>inefficiency will render it</add> beneficial.<lb/>
In proportion as the substantive system is good,<lb/>
the <del>aptitude</del> <add>efficiency</add> of the adjective system will render that same<lb/>
adjective system beneficial, its <del>inaptitude</del> <add>inefficiency</add> will render it mischievous.</p>
<p>Of the English system taken its <gap/>, – of the English<lb/>
system as compared <add>contrasted</add> with the continental the characteristic<lb/>
and distinguishing feature is its inefficiency:  and <del>to</del> <add>in</add> this inefficiency<lb/>
may be found the <add>main</add> cause of its beneficialness.  The<lb/>
continental substantive system of the <gap/> being at the acme of<lb/>
<del>its</del> mischievousness and the adjective system conformable to it, are<lb/>
in the highest degree efficient in relation to it the mischief produced by it<lb/>
is without allay.  The English<lb/>
substantive system being somewhat<lb/>
less mischievous, and<lb/>
with respect to <del><gap/></del> the<lb/>
<add><unclear>article</unclear> of it the</add> mischievous parts of it <unclear>included</unclear><lb/>
<add>in</add> a considerable degree inefficient,<lb/>
to <del>the</del> <add>inefficiency</add> it is that to<lb/>
the mischief produced by both together, that portion of allay which it contains, is entitled for its existence.</p>
<p><note>8 June 1824<lb/>
Procedure Code<lb/>
Suppose Judication<lb/>
instituted for the<lb/>
security of Justice,<lb/>
suppose <gap/><lb/>
instituted for the<lb/>
prohibition of trade</note></p>
<p><note><hi rend="underline">Hardened</hi><lb/>
Judges more so<lb/>
than those judged.<lb/>
<del><gap/></del></note></p>
<p><note>Thus <gap/> <gap/><lb/>
of <gap/> <unclear>baptism</unclear><lb/>
instinct of repressing<lb/>
them:  secret insincerity<lb/>
being unpunishable.</note></p>
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}}

Latest revision as of 12:11, 16 January 2025

Click Here To Edit

1824. June 26
Constitutional Code Ch. XVI. Quasi Jury

☞ Collect and exhibit the points of weakness or

The difference between the here proposed system and the established
English System being thus wide, a natural question is
if the former is good, whence came the general reputation to what cause was it is to be attributed for
goodness on the part of the latter?

The answer is – to three main causes. 1. the publicity attached to it. 2. the Jury trial. 3. interested professional liquidation. By publicity and Jury trial put together it has been
rendered relatively good – in one word excellent. But to
constitute a thing prevent a thing from being excellent, the lowest degree so far as any no degree of depravity
can be sufficient so long as there is one other
more depraved.

Of a system of judicial procedure considered by itself as such, the is
consists in the degree in which it gives execution and effect
to the system of substantive law of which it is the instrument
or appendage. But if and so far as the system of substantive
law is bad and the better the procedure is
in one sense the worse it will be in the other: the worse
it is in the one sense the better it will be in the other. In
proportion as the substantive system is mischievous, the aptitude efficiency
of the adjective system in relation to it will render that
same adjective system mischievous: the inaptitude of it inefficiency will render it beneficial.
In proportion as the substantive system is good,
the aptitude efficiency of the adjective system will render that same
adjective system beneficial, its inaptitude inefficiency will render it mischievous.

Of the English system taken its , – of the English
system as compared contrasted with the continental the characteristic
and distinguishing feature is its inefficiency: and to in this inefficiency
may be found the main cause of its beneficialness. The
continental substantive system of the being at the acme of
its mischievousness and the adjective system conformable to it, are
in the highest degree efficient in relation to it the mischief produced by it
is without allay. The English
substantive system being somewhat
less mischievous, and
with respect to the
article of it the mischievous parts of it included
in a considerable degree inefficient,
to the inefficiency it is that to
the mischief produced by both together, that portion of allay which it contains, is entitled for its existence.

8 June 1824
Procedure Code
Suppose Judication
instituted for the
security of Justice,
suppose
instituted for the
prohibition of trade

Hardened
Judges more so
than those judged.

Thus
of baptism
instinct of repressing
them: secret insincerity
being unpunishable.


Identifier: | JB/034/213/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 34.

Date_1

1824-06-08

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

034

Main Headings

constitutional code; procedure code

Folio number

213

Info in main headings field

constitutional code or procedure

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

10487

Box Contents

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