JB/063/034/002: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/063/034/002: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto loaded
 
https://www.khanacademy.org/
Line 5: Line 5:
''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''


A Priviligium and an ex post facto Law are not the same thing: they are very different
care must be taken not to confound them
Cicero who had sufferd by an ex post-facto
Law, declared against a priviligium, without
knowing what it meant
The Waltham Black Act was a priviligium:
but it was not an ex post facto Law. [/Out] All
Acts of ??????? are strictly Privilegia.
'To speak the truth [/every great] [x/the great] part of the
in the manner legislation has been conducted hitherto
Laws we made, are in a manner Priviligia.
For an Ex post-facto Law [x/Priviligium] to be justifiable, it
must appear that the mischief of the act made
penal by it is greater than the mischief of the
example of the Law.
The mischief of the example of the Law con-
sists in the idea of insecurity [/the pain of apprehension] which it
serves to spread among the people. For that
pain not to be a pure? evil, for it to operate
[page break]
[RIGHT SIDE]
only as a restriction of greater evil, for it
to rest only on those few fromwhom a
greater evil was otherwise to be apprehended
the following conditions must be observed.+ [+ attended to]
It must be [x/???] [/made in] contemplation
of some mischief. It is in fact always pro-
posed? to be made in contemplation of some
mischief: For Legislator xxx he he who he
may is neither so weak nor so shamefaced
tp ...
That Mischief is the product of an Act + [+  of the same king as] either
performed already or only apprehended.
If [/of an act] performed already, then it is [x/???] [/either
cause [x/that not] [/xan] was not a crime before, or
[mn/an act of the description of that in question]
tho a crime not sufficiently penal: or that aa crime and sufficiently penal, ... the act
in question was done under circumstances that
left not sufficient evidence of its having been
committed.
An Ex-post-facto Law is therefore made
[page break] [bottom left now]
to remedy? a supposed defect either in the
legislative department or the Judiciary.
If an Ex post-facto [/Law] is justifiable at all
under any of the foregoing circumstances
if it is on this ground that the impunity
of the offendor viz., such a degree of
impuunity as would exhibit were it not for
the Law is an encouragement to others
to committ all such other mischievous acts
whatever they may be as are not yet
provided with [x/the required?] [/sufficient] punishment: and ti must appear that the probable evil
of such indetermined acts is greater than
the probable evil consisting in the danger
of the abuse of Lovers? of this statute?; that is the applying them to [x/Law?] persons not guil-
-ty of mischievous acts [/at all], or not guilty otherwere
those of acts [x/which being ???  for which they
are already ??? to [/suffer] an adequate punish-
-ment by the Laws ????.
[page break bottom right]
In these cases one sees? of [/such a] px/the] Law is justi-
-fiable it is justifiable on the ??? of its
producing pain in the party against whom
it is levelled: because it is the observation
of that pain? [/in that person] that is to produce its effect
in others.
If the obnoxious act be not yet done but
only apprehended the Law is not justifiable
on the reason? of it's producing pain: the
[/purpose of the Law] business is to prevent a person's doing a mischief, and that person's only: for as to
other persons [x/that may] in whom the propensities
and opportunities are not as yet formed the
purpose may be answered as well by a
Law in the common way.
A [/certain] pain is beneficiary? [/to guard?] for restraint
produces pain; but all pain besides what is
necessary to produce the kind of [/disablement] restraint
deemed sufficient in the case in question
is beside the purpose. It is as much misery in waste
[BOTTOM HEADING]
INTROD. PRIVILEGIA x Ex post-facto Laws x [x/ ??? nizances?]




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

Revision as of 20:19, 6 December 2017

Click Here To Edit

This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet

A Priviligium and an ex post facto Law are not the same thing: they are very different care must be taken not to confound them Cicero who had sufferd by an ex post-facto Law, declared against a priviligium, without knowing what it meant The Waltham Black Act was a priviligium: but it was not an ex post facto Law. [/Out] All Acts of ??????? are strictly Privilegia. 'To speak the truth [/every great] [x/the great] part of the in the manner legislation has been conducted hitherto Laws we made, are in a manner Priviligia. For an Ex post-facto Law [x/Priviligium] to be justifiable, it must appear that the mischief of the act made penal by it is greater than the mischief of the example of the Law. The mischief of the example of the Law con- sists in the idea of insecurity [/the pain of apprehension] which it serves to spread among the people. For that pain not to be a pure? evil, for it to operate

[page break] [RIGHT SIDE] only as a restriction of greater evil, for it to rest only on those few fromwhom a greater evil was otherwise to be apprehended the following conditions must be observed.+ [+ attended to] It must be [x/???] [/made in] contemplation of some mischief. It is in fact always pro- posed? to be made in contemplation of some mischief: For Legislator xxx he he who he may is neither so weak nor so shamefaced tp ...

That Mischief is the product of an Act + [+ of the same king as] either performed already or only apprehended. If [/of an act] performed already, then it is [x/???] [/either cause [x/that not] [/xan] was not a crime before, or [mn/an act of the description of that in question] tho a crime not sufficiently penal: or that aa crime and sufficiently penal, ... the act in question was done under circumstances that left not sufficient evidence of its having been committed. An Ex-post-facto Law is therefore made

[page break] [bottom left now]

to remedy? a supposed defect either in the legislative department or the Judiciary. If an Ex post-facto [/Law] is justifiable at all under any of the foregoing circumstances if it is on this ground that the impunity of the offendor viz., such a degree of impuunity as would exhibit were it not for the Law is an encouragement to others to committ all such other mischievous acts whatever they may be as are not yet provided with [x/the required?] [/sufficient] punishment: and ti must appear that the probable evil of such indetermined acts is greater than the probable evil consisting in the danger of the abuse of Lovers? of this statute?; that is the applying them to [x/Law?] persons not guil- -ty of mischievous acts [/at all], or not guilty otherwere those of acts [x/which being ??? for which they are already ??? to [/suffer] an adequate punish- -ment by the Laws ????.

[page break bottom right]

In these cases one sees? of [/such a] px/the] Law is justi- -fiable it is justifiable on the ??? of its producing pain in the party against whom it is levelled: because it is the observation of that pain? [/in that person] that is to produce its effect in others. If the obnoxious act be not yet done but only apprehended the Law is not justifiable on the reason? of it's producing pain: the [/purpose of the Law] business is to prevent a person's doing a mischief, and that person's only: for as to other persons [x/that may] in whom the propensities and opportunities are not as yet formed the purpose may be answered as well by a Law in the common way. A [/certain] pain is beneficiary? [/to guard?] for restraint produces pain; but all pain besides what is necessary to produce the kind of [/disablement] restraint deemed sufficient in the case in question is beside the purpose. It is as much misery in waste

[BOTTOM HEADING] INTROD. PRIVILEGIA x Ex post-facto Laws x [x/ ??? nizances?]



Identifier: | JB/063/034/002"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 63.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

063

Main Headings

law in general

Folio number

034

Info in main headings field

introd. privilegia & ex post-facto laws

Image

002

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

c1

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

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

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

20223

Box Contents

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