JB/063/158/002: 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/063/158/002: Difference between revisions

ChrisRiley (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
TB Editor (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
<head>EXEMPTION ACCIDENT Negligence</head>
<head>EXEMPTION ACCIDENT Negligence</head>
<p><del>Confining ourselves</del> <add>[Now therefore if we confine]</add> ourselves <add>as we have hitherto done</add> to such cases where the energy <add>exerted</add> no <del>such</del> visible nor<lb/> customary connection with the obnoxious incident, the doctrine <add>point</add> I have been contending<lb/> for respecting the impropriety of punishment, will not &amp; trust after what has been<lb/>said be easily controverted. But <add>what <del>it will be <gap/></del></add> where it has such a connection? <del>it will appear</del><lb/> <add><del>does</del> <add> is</add> <add><del>this</del> punishment it will be said, require here</add>  to deserve a different consideration?, <del>& what it will be <gap/> in respect to the<lb/> punishment in these cases ougth to be established?</del> <add>& till any <gap/> as</add> I answer <add>no</add> none at all &#x2014;</p>
<p><del>Confining ourselves</del> <add>[Now therefore if we confine]</add> ourselves <add>as we have hitherto done</add> to such cases where the energy <add>exerted</add> no <del>such</del> visible nor<lb/> customary connection with the obnoxious incident, the doctrine <add>point</add> I have been contending<lb/> for respecting the impropriety of punishment, will not &amp; trust after what has been<lb/>said be easily controverted. But <add>what <del>it will be <gap/></del></add> where it has such a connection? <del>it will appear</del><lb/> <add><del>does</del> <add> is</add> <add><del>this</del> punishment it will be said, require here</add>  to deserve a different consideration?, <del>& what it will be <gap/> in respect to the<lb/> punishment in these cases ougth to be established?</del> <add>& till any <gap/> as</add> I answer <add>no</add> none at all &#x2014;</p>
<note>What are the <add>shall be</add> the Rules of Law by which<lb/>its relevancy is to be determined?</note>
<note>What are the <add>shall be</add> the Rules of Law by which<lb/>its relevancy is to be determined?</note>
<p>The gradations of that connection are so <add>equivocal &</add> insensible, that we can <add>have</add> no Ideas of their dist-<gap/> <add>respective know-<gap/></add><lb/>&amp; if <del>they</del> we had, words would be <add>still</add> wanting to express them: and tho' with a view to that practical<lb/> doctrine on this head I have spoken <add>made a distinction</add> of <del>that</del> between the <add>absolute absence</add> existence &amp; <add>presence</add> non-existence<lb/>of such a connection <add>in any degree</add>, yet that <add>that</add> distinction has no <del>limits</del> ascertainable limits in the nature<lb/>of things will very evidently appear &#x2014; To take for a general example as we have done<lb/>all along the case of Homicide &#x2014; If the <add>presence of</add> intention <add>to produce the obnoxious event</add> be ascertained, the criminality is out <add>of</add><lb/>dispute and it <add>the crime</add> is murder or manslaughter according to the disposition of <add>other</add> circumstances<lb/>which will be considered in their proper place. But if <del>the</del> such intention be<lb/> absent, or it's <add>absence or</add> presence <del>be left</del> <add>remain</add> to be collected from the absence or present of <gap/><lb/>connection what ought to be the rule of punishment established in the event <add>of</add><lb/><add>the presence</add> such connection? I answer no <add>there ought</add> no fixed rule at all &#x2014; ascertain <add>first <add> let the proper jurisdiction</add> in the best way<lb/>they can, the absence or presence of instruction; it's <del>absence</del> <add>presence</add> ascertained, the present <add>subject</add><lb/> is out of question; it's absence ascertained, then let them <del>apportion</del> <add>ascertain</add> the degree of <gap/>-ness<lb/> in <add>of</add> that connection by affixing their own proportion of a variable punishment<lb/> <hi rend="underline">none at all</hi>; if their opinion be, that that connection <del>in the <gap/></del> <add>under circumstances</add> in question wo-<gap/><lb/>so slight so little obvious as <hi rend="underline">never</hi> to occur; <hi rend="underline">more or less</hi> as they think it likely<lb/> to be more or less strongly in contemplation: let them in short <del>in short</del> (to bring this <add>investigation</add><lb/> at once into the track of ordinary <add>familiar</add> discourse) apportion the punishment to<lb/> the degree of Negligence.</p>
 
<p>The gradations of that connection are so <add>equivocal &amp;</add> insensible, that we can <add>have</add> no Ideas of their dist-<gap/> <add>respective know-<gap/></add><lb/>&amp; if <del>they</del> we had, words would be <add>still</add> wanting to express them: and tho' with a view to that practical<lb/> doctrine on this head I have spoken <add>made a distinction</add> of <del>that</del> between the <add>absolute absence</add> existence &amp; <add>presence</add> non-existence<lb/>of such a connection <add>in any degree</add>, yet that <add>that</add> distinction has no <del>limits</del> ascertainable limits in the nature<lb/>of things will very evidently appear &#x2014; To take for a general example as we have done<lb/>all along the case of Homicide &#x2014; If the <add>presence of</add> intention <add>to produce the obnoxious event</add> be ascertained, the criminality is out <add>of</add><lb/>dispute and it <add>the crime</add> is murder or manslaughter according to the disposition of <add>other</add> circumstances<lb/>which will be considered in their proper place. But if <del>the</del> such intention be<lb/> absent, or it's <add>absence or</add> presence <del>be left</del> <add>remain</add> to be collected from the absence or present of <gap/><lb/>connection what ought to be the rule of punishment established in the event <add>of</add><lb/><add>the presence</add> such connection? I answer no <add>there ought</add> no fixed rule at all &#x2014; ascertain <add>first <add> let the proper jurisdiction</add> in the best way<lb/>they can, the absence or presence of instruction; it's <del>absence</del> <add>presence</add> ascertained, the present <add>subject</add><lb/> is out of question; it's absence ascertained, then let them <del>apportion</del> <add>ascertain</add> the degree of <gap/>-ness<lb/> in <add>of</add> that connection by affixing their own proportion of a variable punishment<lb/> <hi rend="underline">none at all</hi>; if their opinion be, that that connection <del>in the <gap/></del> <add>under circumstances</add> in question wo-<gap/><lb/>so slight so little obvious as <hi rend="underline">never</hi> to occur; <hi rend="underline">more or less</hi> as they think it likely<lb/> to be more or less strongly in contemplation: let them in short <del>in short</del> (to bring this <add>investigation</add><lb/> at once into the track of ordinary <add>familiar</add> discourse) apportion the punishment to<lb/> the degree of Negligence.</p>
<note><del><gap/> only serve as a source of <gap/><lb/>to posterity <gap/><lb/>to be regarded</del> - each case being<lb/><gap/> from <del><gap/></del> <add>those most resembling</add><lb/> in a thousand circumstances incapable<lb/><del>& standing <gap/> into <gap/> <gap/></del><lb/>of being comprised into a general description<lb/>stands upon its own bottom &<lb/>ought not to be assumed as<lb/>rule for any other.</note>
<note><del><gap/> only serve as a source of <gap/><lb/>to posterity <gap/><lb/>to be regarded</del> - each case being<lb/><gap/> from <del><gap/></del> <add>those most resembling</add><lb/> in a thousand circumstances incapable<lb/><del>& standing <gap/> into <gap/> <gap/></del><lb/>of being comprised into a general description<lb/>stands upon its own bottom &<lb/>ought not to be assumed as<lb/>rule for any other.</note>
<p>Tho' I have made these distinctions in words there is no apprehensible distinction in <add>itself <add>the nature</add> the-<gap/><lb/>answerable to it</p>
<p>Tho' I have made these distinctions in words there is no apprehensible distinction in <add>itself <add>the nature</add> the-<gap/><lb/>answerable to it</p>
Line 16: Line 18:
<note>every general proposition on<lb/>this subject must be either<lb/>incapable of application <add>being applied</add> or<lb/> a source of error if it was applied<lb/>erroneous</note>
<note>every general proposition on<lb/>this subject must be either<lb/>incapable of application <add>being applied</add> or<lb/> a source of error if it was applied<lb/>erroneous</note>


<note>Our ideas <del>could</del> <add>can</add> not find any<lb/>fixed & distinct pain to <gap/><lb/>to <gap/>; & could they,<lb/>they would not find words to<lb/>express them &</note>
<note>Our ideas <del>could</del> <add>can</add> not find any<lb/>fixed & distinct pain to <gap/><lb/>to <gap/>; &amp; could they,<lb/>they would not find words to<lb/>express them &amp;</note>





Revision as of 17:06, 19 March 2015

Click Here To Edit

EXEMPTION ACCIDENT Negligence

Confining ourselves [Now therefore if we confine] ourselves as we have hitherto done to such cases where the energy exerted no such visible nor
customary connection with the obnoxious incident, the doctrine point I have been contending
for respecting the impropriety of punishment, will not & trust after what has been
said be easily controverted. But what it will be where it has such a connection? it will appear
does <add> is this punishment it will be said, require here to deserve a different consideration?, & what it will be in respect to the
punishment in these cases ougth to be established?
& till any as I answer no none at all —

What are the shall be the Rules of Law by which
its relevancy is to be determined?

The gradations of that connection are so equivocal & insensible, that we can have no Ideas of their dist- respective know-
& if they we had, words would be still wanting to express them: and tho' with a view to that practical
doctrine on this head I have spoken made a distinction of that between the absolute absence existence & presence non-existence
of such a connection in any degree, yet that that distinction has no limits ascertainable limits in the nature
of things will very evidently appear — To take for a general example as we have done
all along the case of Homicide — If the presence of intention to produce the obnoxious event be ascertained, the criminality is out of
dispute and it the crime is murder or manslaughter according to the disposition of other circumstances
which will be considered in their proper place. But if the such intention be
absent, or it's absence or presence be left remain to be collected from the absence or present of
connection what ought to be the rule of punishment established in the event of
the presence such connection? I answer no there ought no fixed rule at all — ascertain first <add> let the proper jurisdiction in the best way
they can, the absence or presence of instruction; it's absence presence ascertained, the present subject
is out of question; it's absence ascertained, then let them apportion ascertain the degree of -ness
in of that connection by affixing their own proportion of a variable punishment
none at all; if their opinion be, that that connection in the under circumstances in question wo-
so slight so little obvious as never to occur; more or less as they think it likely
to be more or less strongly in contemplation: let them in short in short (to bring this investigation
at once into the track of ordinary familiar discourse) apportion the punishment to
the degree of Negligence.

only serve as a source of
to posterity
to be regarded
- each case being
from those most resembling
in a thousand circumstances incapable
& standing into
of being comprised into a general description
stands upon its own bottom &
ought not to be assumed as
rule for any other.

Tho' I have made these distinctions in words there is no apprehensible distinction in itself <add>the nature the-
answerable to it

The variety of such cases, is
endless & the differences will
not come under any verbal description

Where the gradations are so insensible between the degrees of guilt & even between guilt
& no guilt it is a great imperfection that the punishment should be [immense or nothing]
tied down to a certain quantity, & that certain general rules should be laid down for it's application
which either cannot be applied to if applied must be productive of disproportion [irregularity hardship]
make all this apparent very clear.

The Shades of negligence are so
indistinguishable, that where the
Punishment is either grievous
or none at all it is impossible
to lay down any satisfactory
Ruler relative to that colour
where it shall commence
of its commencement


every general proposition on
this subject must be either
incapable of application being applied or
a source of error if it was applied
erroneous

Our ideas could can not find any
fixed & distinct pain to
to ; & could they,
they would not find words to
express them &


An example or two will I trust



Identifier: | JB/063/158/002"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

158

Info in main headings field

exemption accident negligence

Image

002

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

2

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

/ d1*

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

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

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

20347

Box Contents

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