Evidence

28 Feb 1803

Perfect

Self-correcting

Defence of

The obstacle in this case is altogether mountainous[?]: the union of professional with vulgar prejudices. The opinion long ago formed - long ago announced. I looked upon it as a prejudice most pernicious to society - disgraceful to the country - hostile to the ends of justice. Being so long ago formed - it was not formed at least for any purpose of the present day. I have a right to defend it &c without being called to account for disrespect &c. Occasion of its being published now - to take advantage of the public attention - of the chance of seeing a certain number of persons /men/ - and even men in power - engaged for now at least in the side of utility and justice.

No communication with the Admiration - no expectation of its being acceptable thus - no care about the matter. This avowal made from motives of justice. Lest this unpopularity should fall upon them. Thus it is, that the topic of the day furnished the occasion - not the motive. Commensurate [...?] tended to be given [...?] for.

Useless cruelty of a system of ex post facto punishment - any otherwise than as necessary to reconcile the public to a change of system. These observations in the making of a change to the Grand Jury - grounded on a particular occasion, but avoiding any particular applications. Use of it to prevent the principle here defended from being applied to the purpose of useless oppression. Fondness for abuse the principles witness[?] - but love of power added to the consciousness of incapacity. Since I have had any acquaintance with the state of the law, what ever deviations have been made from the straight and rigid path of exact analogy, have been made towards the path of a reason utility and substantial justice. It would a sad malefaction to see the course of decision in this ground turn retrograde.

The rules above laid down have been most rigorously has for its most distinguished features its clearness its simplicity and its precision. All attempts at penal legislation that have hitherto appeared, though leaving the object unaccomplished an infinitely more complicated, more difficult of comprehension and more vague.

It have been necessary to enlist into the prison a great variety of punishments to adapt them to each the several offences, and to contrive new expedients for rendering them exemplary and characteristic. But persons who may be ready to admitt as a general supposition, that these two qualities are essential, will nonetheless be alarmed when we come to the application of them. Punishments considered in themselves and unconnected with crimes naturally excite antipathy and even horror. l And the uproar more over that is to be obtained form the feeling and imagination is so [...?] and capricious that the same punishments that would excite the indignation from man as too severe, would be blamed by another as too lenient and inefficacious.

The object here is to remove a possible objection - a system of punishment is not severe [...?] because it is variable. Its multiplicity and variety of punishments shews the industry and attention of the legislator. To provide no more than one or two species of punishment shews an utter ignorance of all principles and a savage contempt of all proportions. In proof of this countries may be mentioned subject to the most despotic government, and civilization but very little advanced, where it may be said there is but one species of punishment in use. The more closely we examine the nature of crimes of motives of character and the possible variation of circumstances, the more strongly we shall be impressed with the necessity of employing different modes of punishment for their prevention.