★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
Auto loaded |
No edit summary |
||
(18 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''[{{fullurl:JB/050/081/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | '''[{{fullurl:JB/050/081/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
'' | |||
<head>CERTAINTY. PROCEDURE. LAW & FACT.</head> | |||
<!-- Some words at the end of lines are incomplete because the folio was cut after the text was written, and some letters have been lost. --> | |||
<p>It is right <add>of advantage</add> that the power of deciding on <add><del><gap/></del></add> questions of Law, & the power of deciding <add>on</add><lb/> | |||
the question of fact, should be vested in separate hands: if those two powers are <sic>confou</sic><lb/> | |||
in the hands of those to whom the latter power alone properly belongs</p> | |||
If in the hands of those to whom the former appertains the restraint <unclear>is gone</unclear> which <sic>cons</sic><lb/> | |||
in the consciousness that the Law declared against this or that <unclear>man</unclear> <unclear>must be</unclear><add>Law,</add> <del><gap/></del><lb/> | |||
against all other and themselves -. <del>what</del> | |||
</p> | |||
<p>What verges towards this inconvenience is the habit of too minute generalisating <add><sic>axiomatization</sic></add><lb/> | |||
stretching the bounds of Law too far, whereby it happens that the rules laid <sic>dow</sic><lb/> | |||
are so narrow as not <add>scarce</add> to take in any more <add>others</add> than the precise case on the occasion <add>of</add> <add>which occasioned there</add><lb/> | |||
which they were pronounced. - This as to the <del>arbitrary | |||
<unclear>power it gives to the Judges</del>, is <add>in <gap/> it gives to partialities may become </add> <lb/> | |||
tantamount to the <add>power of</add> determination of the matter of fact <unclear>superadded</unclear> to that of Law. | |||
</p> | |||
<p>The <del>power of the</del> <add>share taken by the</add> Jury in the complex decision secures [to] it <add><sic>it's</sic></add> <sic>aception</sic> among <add>with</add><lb/> | |||
the people - The <add>Legislative definition <add>declaration</add> <add>according to which it is framed<add>whereby it is <unclear>guided</unclear></add></add><unclear>precise</unclear> definitive power of the Legislation] [supplied where <del>def</del> <add> <sic>dificient</sic> </add> <lb/> | |||
by the Judges, <add>Court</add> it's uniformity with the rest of the system i:e: it's <del>general</del> <add>relative</add> ability; <unclear>th</unclear><lb/> | |||
power of the Judges of setting it aside & sending the question to be <unclear>retried</unclear>, <sic>it's</sic> <add>particular</add> <del>pa</del> <lb/> | |||
utility.<add>absolute</add> </p> | |||
<p>When you have <sic>compleated</sic><add>perfected</add> your definition of the C<gap/> so as (as near as in<add>may be</add><lb/> | |||
to take in all the mischief and nothing more than the mischief then have <sic>yo</sic><lb/> | |||
done all that there is for the Law to do — The Judge has nothing <sic>mor</sic><lb/> | |||
to do (and surely it is enough) than to superintend the order - and conduct of the procee<add>-ding</add><lb/> | |||
to keep the Council within their duty, to interrogate the <add>living</add> witnesses where <add>re thinks</add> he<lb/> | |||
proper, to examine & explain the dead <add>inanimate</add> evidence, to sum up the whole evidence<lb/> | |||
together to remark in it for the assistance of the Jury, <del>the strong the weak,</del> <add>what <del><gap/></del><add>he thinks</add></add><add>strong <del><gap/></del><add>in the one</add></add> <add><del>what i</del></add><lb/> | |||
too <add>what on the other side, & what</add> ambiguous - all this preparatory to the verdict - after it, in another <del>pl</del><add>place:</add><lb/> | |||
to give his <add>2</add> vote <add>2</add>and <add>1</add>opinion at least his opinion, if he is not satisfied with it <add>for</add> <lb/> | |||
the setting of it aside.</p> | |||
<note><add>+</add> explain this further - this is <lb/> | |||
the case of coining the proof of which<lb/> | |||
has been from the very first substituted<lb/> | |||
by the Law (indeed the common Law<lb/> | |||
but <unclear>these where</unclear> the powers of those<lb/> | |||
where decisions made Common Law<lb/> | |||
were not so confined as they now <lb/> | |||
are since the establishment of a regular<lb/> | |||
Legislation) instead of the proof of the <unclear>circulation</unclear><lb/> | |||
of the bad coin, which alone<lb/> | |||
it is that in fact producing the mischief. </note> | |||
<p>All questions of intention are questions of fact: because either there is as <sic>fac</sic><lb/> | |||
the connexion of which with a certain intention is absolutely necessary, & therefore <add>standing</add>st<lb/> | |||
alone it ought not to be made<add>in all case</add> conclusive of each intention, <add>And therefore Judges ought not to decide concerning the <lb/> | |||
because their opinions cannot (as well as Judges opinions <gap/><lb/> | |||
some & as a <gap/> for future & in case <del><gap/> <gap/></del></add> or if there be it is <note>of <gap/> committed of the like kind</note><lb/> | |||
obviously is that even simple men are not likely to fail <add>mistake</add> of <unclear>promising | |||
</unclear> it, & therefore <sic>thi</sic><add>ago</add><lb/> | |||
Judges ought not because they need not; or else<add>lastly</add> the conviction tho' necessary is so remote <add>+</add>, the <note>The Law may perhaps <add>be admitted to doubt</add> decide<lb/> | |||
that such a thing shall not be <lb/> | |||
evidence to the effect that <del>upon</del><add>the</add><lb/> | |||
Jury shall not upon the <unclear>evidit</unclear><lb/>of it find their verdict, because it may prevent <sic>it's</sic>being afford<lb/> | |||
to them. but it may not to <lb/> | |||
<sic>ecide</sic> that such a thing shall be evidence, to the effect that the Jury <hi rend="underline">shall</hi> upon the credit of it found their verdict <add>when</add><lb/> | |||
it is affer'd them, because that would be annihilating their office.</note><lb/> | |||
they Judges ought not because consistently with the <add>loss of</add> limitations of their powers they cannot</p><pb/> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} |
CERTAINTY. PROCEDURE. LAW & FACT.
It is right of advantage that the power of deciding on questions of Law, & the power of deciding on
the question of fact, should be vested in separate hands: if those two powers are confou
in the hands of those to whom the latter power alone properly belongs
If in the hands of those to whom the former appertains the restraint is gone which cons
in the consciousness that the Law declared against this or that man must beLaw,
against all other and themselves -. what
What verges towards this inconvenience is the habit of too minute generalisating axiomatization
stretching the bounds of Law too far, whereby it happens that the rules laid dow
are so narrow as not scarce to take in any more others than the precise case on the occasion of which occasioned there
which they were pronounced. - This as to the arbitrary
<unclear>power it gives to the Judges, is in it gives to partialities may become
tantamount to the power of determination of the matter of fact superadded to that of Law.
The power of the share taken by the Jury in the complex decision secures [to] it it's aception among with
the people - The Legislative definition <add>declaration according to which it is framed<add>whereby it is guided</add>precise definitive power of the Legislation] [supplied where def dificient
by the Judges, Court it's uniformity with the rest of the system i:e: it's general relative ability; th
power of the Judges of setting it aside & sending the question to be retried, it's particular pa
utility.absolute
When you have compleatedperfected your definition of the C so as (as near as inmay be
to take in all the mischief and nothing more than the mischief then have yo
done all that there is for the Law to do — The Judge has nothing mor
to do (and surely it is enough) than to superintend the order - and conduct of the procee-ding
to keep the Council within their duty, to interrogate the living witnesses where re thinks he
proper, to examine & explain the dead inanimate evidence, to sum up the whole evidence
together to remark in it for the assistance of the Jury, the strong the weak, what <add>he thinks</add>strong <add>in the one</add> what i
too what on the other side, & what ambiguous - all this preparatory to the verdict - after it, in another plplace:
to give his 2 vote 2and 1opinion at least his opinion, if he is not satisfied with it for
the setting of it aside.
+ explain this further - this is
the case of coining the proof of which
has been from the very first substituted
by the Law (indeed the common Law
but these where the powers of those
where decisions made Common Law
were not so confined as they now
are since the establishment of a regular
Legislation) instead of the proof of the circulation
of the bad coin, which alone
it is that in fact producing the mischief.
All questions of intention are questions of fact: because either there is as fac
the connexion of which with a certain intention is absolutely necessary, & therefore standingst
alone it ought not to be madein all case conclusive of each intention, And therefore Judges ought not to decide concerning the
because their opinions cannot (as well as Judges opinions
some & as a for future & in case or if there be it is of committed of the like kind
obviously is that even simple men are not likely to fail mistake of promising
it, & therefore thiago
Judges ought not because they need not; or elselastly the conviction tho' necessary is so remote +, the The Law may perhaps be admitted to doubt decide
that such a thing shall not be
evidence to the effect that uponthe
Jury shall not upon the evidit
of it find their verdict, because it may prevent it'sbeing afford
to them. but it may not to
ecide that such a thing shall be evidence, to the effect that the Jury shall upon the credit of it found their verdict when
it is affer'd them, because that would be annihilating their office.
they Judges ought not because consistently with the loss of limitations of their powers they cannot
---page break---
Identifier: | JB/050/081/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 50. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
050 |
procedure code |
||
081 |
certainty procedure law & fact |
||
001 |
|||
text sheet |
1 |
||
recto |
c1 |
||
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::gr [crown motif] [britannia with shield motif]]] |
||
16072 |
|||