1
results found in
22 ms
Page 1
of 1
28 June 1804
Procedure E
22 (1)
Ends
Ch.1.
'.5. Ends reducible
'.5. Ends reducible to the three collateral ones. avoidance to give birth to punishment, rights, or satisfaction, improper in quantity or quality.
On a strict review taken on the abovementioned specific ends of procedure (main and collateral) with their correspondent evils, the list of them may be pat to appear incompleat. Punishment, it may be said, besides being due or undue in respect of the occasion on which and the person on /to/ whom it is applied, may be due or undue /is liable to be undue/, in respect of quantity and /or/ in respect of quality. Suppose then that being applied on a proper occasion, and to a proper person, it be applied in undue quantity - that is in a quantity over and above what is due, or in a quantity falling short of what is due - or, though the quantity be unexceptionable yet[?] in an undue quality - i.e. in a mode and form /shape/ different from that which has been appointed /any which has been allowed of/ by the legislator. In each of these cases there is something wrong done by the Judge: in each of these cases the main /general/ end of procedure has been to a certain degree deviated from: a failure has taken place pro tanto in respect to the giving effect to the intended dispensation and production of the substantive law. Yet in any one of these with what propriety can it be said /how can it be said with propriety/ punishment has been applied, where undue?
And so in respect of collation of rights - and rendering of satisfaction.
Similar Items
-
Title: [29 June 1804 Procedure 24]Description: 29 June 1804 Procedure 24 (3) Ends '.5. Ends reducible 1. Application of Punishment undue /improper/ in quantity by being too great. This is reducible to application of punishment where undue. Proof. From the quantity actually applied subtract the quantity due, to the amount of the remainder there exists application of punishment where due /the reaminder is the quantity applied where undue/. 2. Application of Punishment improper in quantity by being too little. This is reducible to non-application of punishment. Proof. From the quantity due subtract the quantity actually applied, the remainder is the quantity not applied where due 3. Application of punishment improper in quality, quantity incommensurable or laid out of the account. The evil in this case is composed of the two opposite evils above-mentioned: application of punishment of punishment where undue, and non-application of punishment where due. Logically and arithmetically speaking, the evil in this third case will have been twice as great, indeed more than twice as great, as in either of the other two. Morally and practically speaking, it is no less evident, that the first evil, instead of being doubled by the second, will in a greater or less degree have been diminished. The second of the two elementary /component/ operations is like an error in arithmetic, coming in, not on the same side of the account as the first, but on the opposite side. (a) Repeat the same process where rights are concerned, and where satisfaction is concered, respectively, the result will be seen to be the same. (a) Note (a) on a separate page
-
Title: [12 June 1804 Procedure 11]Description: 12 June 1804 Procedure 11 (5) Ends Ch.1 3. Particular Main Ends In vain would rights of either kind - and in particular consummated rights be created and conferred by the legislator - in vain would the correspondent sort of offences be created - the correspondent obligations imposed - if to the violation of these rights - to the commission of these offences - to the branch of these obligations - punishment, in some shape or other, were not annexed. Punishment taken by itself as an evil: but considered as necessary to the warding off some greater evil, it operates, to the amount of the differences, as a good. But in so far as it is a good, the absence of it - the non-application of it - is an evil /a mischief - an inconvenience/. Wheresoever an offence has been committed, punishment, in some shape of other, exception made for these cases in which pardon is proper /the particular cases which call for pardon +/ may be stated as .said to be/ these: the non-application of it an inconvenience /an evil a mischief/. Thus in subordination to the main general end of procedure /the system of procedure, we have on //a// particular end/ - Application of punishment where due application of evil under the name of punishment in a case where no punishment is due is besides the immediate evil attained with a deplorable train of evil consequences. " Hence comes another particular end subordinate to the main (a) general end of procedure: avoiding to apply punishment where not due /undue/. + Introd. Ch.│ │ p.│ │ Dum.[?] " Dum.[?] (a) or rather collateral?
-
Title: [28 June 1804 Procedure D 16]Description: 28 June 1804 Procedure D 16 (1) Ends Ch.1 '.4. Particular Collateral termination[?] '.4. Particular collateral ends of procedure:- consisting in the avoidance of the ultimate evils producible by error in the pursiot of the main ends. avoidance to give birth to punishment, right or satisfaction where undue The several objects above spoken of under the name /description/ of the particular of specific ends of procedure, being branches of the main end, viz. giving effect and fulfilment to the fulfilment of the several predictions contained in /delivered by/ the substantive law, are all of them, it may be observed of a positive case: the events respectively endeavoured to be produced by a course of procedure directed to these ends, being so many positive events: the propositions by which the events or results in question would be [...?], being so many affirmative propositions:- punishment due has been applied: the right due has been confirmed: the satisfaction due has been administered. The generic end in question being the main end of procedure, these specific ends, being branches of that main end, are themselves so many main though specific ends. The specific ends we now come to speak of are so many branches of the object already spoken of /brought to view/ under the designation /name/ of the collateral general end. That generic end being of the negative cast, these specific ends will each of them be so too. As the description of the generic collateral end was determined by that of the main end out of which it has been seen to spring, so will the description of these branches of the one be respectively determined by that of the corresponding branches of the other.
1
results found.
Page 1
of 1