JB/087/183/003: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/087/183/003: Difference between revisions

Mfoutz (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
TB Editor (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 9: Line 9:
<note>Raising Evidence</note>
<note>Raising Evidence</note>


<p><add>dirty business</add> it is to prosecute in all cases in which <del>the</del><lb/>either individuals have no natural interest <del>to</del> so to do, or the<lb/>interest which the public is conceived to have in<lb/>the punishment of delinquents <add>suppression of the offence</add>, is too great to be<lb/>trusted <del>to the chance</del> <add><del>into</del> in such</add> hands.  <del>of chance individuals</del> But of this hereafter.<lb/></p><!-- A mark for a marginal note appears here, but there is no note in the margin. --><p>Where you can <del>get <add>get two</add></del> bring one witness upon<lb/>one matter, where you can get two witnesses to a <add>on a<lb/>side</add> fact instead of one you get a great advantage:<lb/>because if falsehood is designed you have a great<lb/>chance of detecting it by cross-examining them apart:<lb/>witness Susanna and the two elders.  But by<lb/>coupling a nominal informer to your one witness you<lb/>get neither that advantage nor any other: you are<lb/>still forced to take up with your one witness, whom<lb/><del>if you</del> if the reward you trust to has any operation,<lb/>you get upon such terms <add>by such means</add> as according to your<lb/>rules of evidence render him inadmissable.  You<lb/>might just as well and indeed much better let the<lb/>witness prosecute and hold him up to view in the <add>in circumstances</add><lb/> condition <add>situation</add> in which he really <del>b</del> is, with this bias upon<lb/>his mind: you would save trouble: you would obviate<lb/> delusion: and you would diminish by one half<lb/>the chance which the delinquent has of getting off <add>purchasing impunity
<p><add>dirty business</add> it is to prosecute in all cases in which <del>the</del><lb/>either individuals have no natural interest <del>to</del> so to do, or the<lb/>interest which the public is conceived to have in<lb/>the punishment of delinquents <add>suppression of the offence</add>, is too great to be<lb/>trusted <del>to the chance</del> <add><del>into</del> in such</add> hands.  <del>of chance individuals</del> But of this hereafter.<lb/></p><!-- A mark for a marginal note appears here, but there is no note in the margin. --><p>Where you can <del>get <add>get two</add></del> bring one witness upon<lb/>one matter, where you can get two witnesses to a <add>on a<lb/>side</add> fact instead of one you get a great advantage:<lb/>because if falsehood is designed you have a great<lb/>chance of detecting it by cross-examining them apart:<lb/>witness Susanna and the two elders.  But by<lb/>coupling a nominal informer to your one witness you<lb/>get neither that advantage nor any other: you are<lb/>still forced to take up with your one witness, whom<lb/><del>if you</del> if the reward you trust to has any operation,<lb/>you get upon such terms <add>by such means</add> as according to your<lb/>rules of evidence render him inadmissible.  You<lb/>might just as well and indeed much better let the<lb/>witness prosecute and hold him up to view in the <add>in circumstances</add><lb/> condition <add>situation</add> in which he really <del>b</del> is, with this bias upon<lb/>his mind: you would save trouble: you would obviate<lb/> delusion: and you would diminish by one half<lb/>the chance which the delinquent has of getting off <add>purchasing impunity
</add><lb/>by tampering with his adversaries.  You would save<lb/>equivocation at least, and <add>not to mention</add> sometimes perjury: for it is<lb/>the <add>general</add> property <note>one characteristic property <lb/>of this whole system of <lb/>restrictive rules of evidence<lb/></note> of the <add>all these <del>restrictive</del> disqualifying</add> rules of evidence, <del>to</del> while it  shuts<lb/> <note>out</note></p>
</add><lb/>by tampering with his adversaries.  You would save<lb/>equivocation at least, and <add>not to mention</add> sometimes perjury: for it is<lb/>the <add>general</add> property <note>one characteristic property <lb/>of this whole system of <lb/>restrictive rules of evidence<lb/></note> of the <add>all these <del>restrictive</del> disqualifying</add> rules of evidence, <del>to</del> while it  shuts<lb/> <note>out</note></p>


Line 48: Line 48:


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

Latest revision as of 17:17, 22 February 2021

Click Here To Edit

11

Indirect

Raising Evidence

dirty business it is to prosecute in all cases in which the
either individuals have no natural interest to so to do, or the
interest which the public is conceived to have in
the punishment of delinquents suppression of the offence, is too great to be
trusted to the chance into in such hands. of chance individuals But of this hereafter.

Where you can get get two bring one witness upon
one matter, where you can get two witnesses to a on a
side
fact instead of one you get a great advantage:
because if falsehood is designed you have a great
chance of detecting it by cross-examining them apart:
witness Susanna and the two elders. But by
coupling a nominal informer to your one witness you
get neither that advantage nor any other: you are
still forced to take up with your one witness, whom
if you if the reward you trust to has any operation,
you get upon such terms by such means as according to your
rules of evidence render him inadmissible. You
might just as well and indeed much better let the
witness prosecute and hold him up to view in the in circumstances
condition situation in which he really b is, with this bias upon
his mind: you would save trouble: you would obviate
delusion: and you would diminish by one half
the chance which the delinquent has of getting off purchasing impunity
by tampering with his adversaries. You would save
equivocation at least, and not to mention sometimes perjury: for it is
the general property one characteristic property
of this whole system of
restrictive rules of evidence
of the all these restrictive disqualifying rules of evidence, to while it shuts
out




















Identifier: | JB/087/183/003"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 87.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

087

Main Headings

indirect legislation

Folio number

183

Info in main headings field

indirect

Image

003

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

4

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

f9 / f10 / f11 / f12

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

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

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

27708

Box Contents

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