★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
an engagement with the delinquent, can<lb/> | an engagement with the delinquent, can<lb/> | ||
for the sake of lucre be brought to break it.</p> | for the sake of lucre be brought to break it.</p> | ||
It may be said that the engagement being by the<lb/> | <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/> | supposition render'd void, there is no harm in <unclear>it's</unclear><lb/> | ||
being broken. | being broken. True it is void, as far as concerns<lb/> | ||
the political sanction: but it is not void<lb/> | |||
by the moral. All that the Law does is not to<lb/> | |||
<sic>compell</sic> him to perform it. But the interests of<lb/> | |||
society, require, and <del>so</del> accordingly so does the moral<lb/> | |||
sanction require, that a man should be ready to<lb/> | |||
perform his engagement although the Law should<lb/> | |||
not compel him. If a man can be brought in<lb/> | |||
this way to break his engagement, it is a sign that <add>the power of money over him is</add> greater than that of<lb/> | |||
<del>money has more price</del> <add><del>power</del></add> <del>over <gap/> <gap/>the morality</del></p><pb/> | |||
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. True it is void, as far as concerns
the political sanction: but it is not void
by the moral. All that the Law does is not to
compell him to perform it. But the interests of
society, require, and so accordingly so does the moral
sanction require, that a man should be ready to
perform his engagement although the Law should
not compel him. If a man can be brought in
this way to break his engagement, it is a sign that the power of money over him is greater than that of
money has more price power over the morality
---page break---
Identifier: | JB/141/131/003"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 141. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
141 |
rationale of punishment |
||
131 |
advantages and disadvantages of forfeiture of protection |
||
003 |
inequality / immorality |
||
text sheet |
4 |
||
recto |
/ f2 / f3 / f4 |
||
jeremy bentham |
[[watermarks::l v g propatria [britannia motif]]] |
||
caroline vernon |
|||
48348 |
|||