★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<head>+</head><lb/><!-- pencil --> | <head>+</head><lb/><!-- pencil --> | ||
<head>Juries</head><lb/><!-- penciled in right margin --> | <head>Juries</head><lb/><!-- penciled in right margin --> | ||
<p><del>upon</del>depended upon.<lb/> | <p><del>upon</del> depended upon.<lb/> | ||
Sometimes then you will have one sort of partiality <del>for</del> <add>get</add><lb/> <del>dominate</del>, <add>the better</add> sometimes another sort of partiality: and in <lb/> either case partiality will have full swing, having <lb/> no <sic>controul</sic> from public opinion to check it. But<lb/> the object <add><del>point</del></add> is not to have <del>people</del> <add>judges</add> governed by<lb/> <del> constitutional</del> <add>one sort of</add> partiality, nor by <del><gap/></del><add>another:</add> but to<lb/> have judges whose accountable situation renders it impossible to them to <add>give way</add> <del><unclear>listen</unclear></del> to any <add>sort</add> <del><unclear>course</unclear></del> of partiality,<lb/> without being sure to smart for it.</p> | |||
<p>Impartiality, it is to be remembered, were it ever <lb/> so <add>secure,</add> <del | |||
<p>Impartiality, it is to be remembered, were it ever <lb/> so <add>secure,</add> <del>central so unimpeachable</del> would never serve alone <lb/> to quality a man for the functions of a Judge; it only <lb/> <add>shuts the door against one out</add> <del>puts a negative upon one</del> of several causes that<lb/> by accident may tend to draw him out of the right<lb/> track: <del>but</del> it does nothing towards putting him<lb/> into it. An ideal would be <del>very</del> impartial: a dog<lb/> or a horse would be impartial. <del>but this can not <!-- example? --> <lb/> is not enough to make an ideal or a dog or a horse<lb/> the properest sort of Judge. Is this a reason for a<lb/></del> Would this be a reason for rejecting men, and preferring<lb/> dogs or horses? | |||
</p><pb/> | </p><pb/> | ||
| Line 28: | Line 29: | ||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} | ||
+
Juries
upon depended upon.
Sometimes then you will have one sort of partiality for get
dominate, the better sometimes another sort of partiality: and in
either case partiality will have full swing, having
no controul from public opinion to check it. But
the object point is not to have people judges governed by
constitutional one sort of partiality, nor by another: but to
have judges whose accountable situation renders it impossible to them to give way listen to any sort course of partiality,
without being sure to smart for it.
Impartiality, it is to be remembered, were it ever
so secure, central so unimpeachable would never serve alone
to quality a man for the functions of a Judge; it only
shuts the door against one out puts a negative upon one of several causes that
by accident may tend to draw him out of the right
track: but it does nothing towards putting him
into it. An ideal would be very impartial: a dog
or a horse would be impartial. but this can not
is not enough to make an ideal or a dog or a horse
the properest sort of Judge. Is this a reason for a
Would this be a reason for rejecting men, and preferring
dogs or horses?
---page break---
|
Identifier: | JB/035/050/003"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 35. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
26, 26* |
|||
|
035 |
constitutional code; evidence; procedure code |
||
|
050 |
|||
|
003 |
|||
|
text sheet |
4 |
||
|
recto |
f3 / f4 / f5 / f6 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::l munn [britannia with shield emblem]]] |
||
|
benjamin constant |
|||
|
10643 |
|||
