JB/141/131/003: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/141/131/003: Difference between revisions

Keithompson (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Keithompson (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 13: Line 13:
<del>tho</del><add>the lesser offender<add><del>as one</del></add></add><add><del>as <gap/> the greater</del> as upon the greater:</add> <del>him who is most</del><add><del>most</del></add> <del>culpable</del> - the lesser upon <del>the</del><lb/>
<del>tho</del><add>the lesser offender<add><del>as one</del></add></add><add><del>as <gap/> the greater</del> as upon the greater:</add> <del>him who is most</del><add><del>most</del></add> <del>culpable</del> - the lesser upon <del>the</del><lb/>
<del><gap/> him who is most culpable</del><add> the greater offender as upon the lesser.</add></p>
<del><gap/> him who is most culpable</del><add> the greater offender as upon the lesser.</add></p>
<p>Another objection applies to this mode of punishment <note>Immorality.</note><lb/>
on the score of <hi rend="underline">immorality</hi>. The punishment<lb/>
being of a pecuniary nature, there is a profit<lb/>
arising out of it which accordingly is<add>to be</add> disposed<lb/>
<del>of to somebody.</del><del><add>in favour of]</del></add> <add>of in favour of somebody. </add> And in whose favour is it disposed of? in favour of  any one who having contracted<lb/>
an engagement with the delinquent, can<lb/>
for the sake of lucre be brought to break it.</p>
It may be said that the engagement being by the<lb/>
supposition render'd void, there is no harm in <unclear>it's</unclear><lb/>
being broken.





Revision as of 20:17, 19 October 2015

Click Here To Edit

Advantages and Disadvants- Disability of Forfeiture of Protection.

-cumstances is any ways connected with the degree Inequality.
a man's criminality of any offence for which
a man can be thus punished. Of two men both
guilty [of the same offence] and that in the same degree
one may be ruined the other not at all affected.
A man who is guilty ofThe greater punishment may<add>is as likely to fall upon</add> fall upon
thothe lesser offender<add>as one</add>as the greater as upon the greater: him who is mostmost culpable - the lesser upon the
him who is most culpable the greater offender as upon the lesser.

Another objection applies to this mode of punishment Immorality.
on the score of immorality. The punishment
being of a pecuniary nature, there is a profit
arising out of it which accordingly isto be disposed
of to somebody.<add>in favour of]</add> of in favour of somebody. And in whose favour is it disposed of? in favour of any one who having contracted
an engagement with the delinquent, can
for the sake of lucre be brought to break it.

It may be said that the engagement being by the
supposition render'd void, there is no harm in it's
being broken.




Identifier: | JB/141/131/003"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 141.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

141

Main Headings

rationale of punishment

Folio number

131

Info in main headings field

advantages and disadvantages of forfeiture of protection

Image

003

Titles

inequality / immorality

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

4

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

/ f2 / f3 / f4

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

[[watermarks::l v g propatria [britannia motif]]]

Marginals

Paper Producer

caroline vernon

Corrections

richard smith

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

48348

Box Contents

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