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