JB/141/028/003: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:53, 13 May 2016

14.

The name of a punishment is an
important object- Enigmantial names spread
a cloud over the means of punishments which the
mind cannot disspate. — The English Laws
are frequently defective under in this respect
A Capital felony, includes different lots of
punishment, the greater part unKnown and consequently
inefficacious — a Felony with benefit of Clergy is
equally obscure — the threatning of the law does
not convey any distinct idea to the mind;—the first
idea which the term would offer to an
would be that it had some reference
to a reward.— A Praemunire is not
more intelligible, even than who understand
the latin word are far from comprehending
the nature ofthe punishment which it denounces.—

Ridddles of this kind resemble
those of the sp sphink sphinx, those are
punished who do not decypher them. —

12

Remissability

Remissibility is the last of all the properties
that seem to be requisite in a lot of punishments —
the general presumption is that when punishment
is applied, punishment is needful:— that it ought
to be applied and therefore cannot want to be
remitted— But in very particular and these very
deplorable cases it may by accident happen
otherwise— Punishment may have been inflicted
upon an innocent person an individual whose innocence is afterwards
discovered— the punishment which he has suffered

Identifier: \| JB/141/028/003"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	028	Info in main headings field
Image	003	Titles	11 simplicity of description / 12 remissibility
Category	copy/fair copy sheet	Number of Pages	4
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	f13 / f5 / f14 / f6
Penner	richard smith	Watermarks	[[watermarks::dusautoy & rump 1809 [britannia with shield emblem]]]
Marginals		Paper Producer	edward collins
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year	1809
Notes public		ID Number	48245
Box Contents

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 <note>14.</note>
 <p>
-The name of a punishment is an<lb/> important object-<del>deleted text</del> Erigmantial named spread<lb/> a <gap/> over the names of punishments which the<lb/> mind cannot disspate. &#x2014; the Englis Laws<lb/> are <gap/> defective <del>deleted text</del> in this respect<lb/> A <hi rend="underline">Capital felony</hi>.  includs different lots of<lb/> punishment, the<gap/><gap/><gap/> and<gap/><lb/> ineffic<gap/>&#x2014; a <hi rend="underline">Felony with benefit of<gap/></hi> is<lb/> equally obscure &#x2014; the threatning of the law dares<lb/> no cary any distinct idea to the mind;&#x2014;<gap/><lb/> idea which he term would offten to an <gap/><lb/> <gap/> woul he that it had some ofensive<lb/> to a word.&#x2014; A <gap/> is not<lb/> more intelligible, even there he <gap/><lb/> the later word are far from conpretending<lb/> the punishment which is denounced.&#x2014;</p>
+The name of a punishment is an<lb/> important object-<del><gap/></del> Enigmantial names spread<lb/> a cloud over the <unclear>means</unclear> of punishments which the<lb/> mind cannot disspate. &#x2014; The English Laws<lb/> are frequently defective <del>under</del> in this respect<lb/> A <hi rend="underline">Capital felony</hi>,  includes different lots of<lb/> punishment, the greater part unKnown and consequently<lb/> inefficacious &#x2014; a <hi rend="underline">Felony with benefit of Clergy</hi> is<lb/> equally obscure &#x2014; the threatning of the law does<lb/> not convey any distinct idea to the mind;&#x2014;the first<lb/> idea which the term would offer to an <gap/><lb/> <gap/> would be that it had some reference<lb/> to a reward.&#x2014; A <hi rend="underline"><foreign>Praemunire</foreign></hi> is not<lb/> more intelligible, even <unclear>than</unclear> who understand<lb/> the latin word are far from comprehending<lb/> <add>the nature of</add>the punishment which it denounces.&#x2014;</p>
-<p><gap/> of this kind <gap/><lb/> Hav of the<gap/> these are<lb/> punishe who do not <gap/> them. &#x2014;</p>
+<p>Ridddles of this kind resemble<lb/> those of the <del>sp<gap/> sphink</del> <add>sphinx</add>, those are<lb/> punished who do not <sic>decypher</sic> them. &#x2014;</p>
+<p>
-<gap/>
+</p>
-<gap/> is the love ofall the properties<lb/> that seem to be <gap/> in a lot of punishments &#x2014;<lb/> the <gap/><gap/> is that when punishment<lb/> is appheid, punishments is needful:&#x2014; <gap/><gap/><lb/> to the <gap/> and therefore cannot work <gap/><lb/> <gap/> But in every perspective and these very<lb/><gap/> cases it may by accident happen<lb/> <gap/> Punishment may have ben inflicted<lb/> when an<gap/> innocence is <gap/><lb/> <gap/> the punishment which he has <gap/>
+<head>Remissability</head>
+<p>Remissibility is the last of all the properties<lb/> that seem to be requisite in a lot of punishments &#x2014;<lb/> the general presumption is that when punishment<lb/> is applied, punishment is needful:&#x2014; that it ought <lb/> to be applied and therefore cannot want to be<lb/> remitted&#x2014; But in very particular and these very<lb/>deplorable cases it may by accident happen<lb/> otherwise&#x2014; Punishment may have been inflicted<lb/> upon <del>an innocent person</del> <add>an individual whose</add> innocence is afterwards<lb/> discovered&#x2014; the punishment which he has suffered</p>
 <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
 {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}

Views

JB/141/028/003: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:53, 13 May 2016

Navigation

Search