On this page

• Text (2)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    offender himself , and not the legislator , is responsible for the evH which falls upon him by his voluntary breach of a just law . We may add , that if th , Q priaciples laid down by our author constitute a valid objection to the existing notions of punishment , they apply with exactly tJte ' sai u ^ 'forc ^ to his own system of banishment to a piartlcufar p lace , ^ f , \ vh ^ t he , l gic ^ PLQ ^ aedges to be ' the fundamental principle ; th # | should goveftl ^ tjjpi criminal code of every enlightened state ,, viz . pKOteptiQU ^ oiV ffcrson and

    property / p . 23 , will justify , the infliction o £ the smallest atom of pain upon offenders , it ; y ? iii justify tfae infliction of atwr amount necessary for the end ; unless such as would outweigii all the benefits of which the security of person or property is the cause . The only rigfyt by which ^ ociety id -warranted in Hnfliotin ^ ' any pain upon any human -creature , is the right o ( sel&d&tet&e ; and if

    this will justif y it in interfering with the natural liberty of its offending members , by the degree of coercion implied ii } removing them to the reformatory atid keeping them there , it wi ^ l warrant any greater degree of cotefcion which may be foun 4 necessary to protect the innocent part of the community against their encroachments . ^ On any other principle , instead of relegating offenders

    to a particular part of the country , or tendering to them the alternative of voluntary exile , the utmost rights of honest people would extend no further than to remove out of harm ' s ' way , by going into exile themselves . But this is merely being- scrupulous in the wrong plaoe * ^ f we were attacked by robbe ns or savages , and in danger of our lives , no one ever questioned our right to defend ourselves even to the death of ' the assailant ; and we

    cannot conceive a greater piece of inconsistency than , admitting this ; to deny us the liberty df declaring beforehand to all robbers , that if they attack us we will put them to deathj | No doubt if we can protect ourselves as effectually with less evil to them , it is our duty to do so ; and we ought to try the experiment in all ways which afford a chance of success , before w $ give it up as hopeless . But our right to punish , is a branch of the universal * wignt of self defence ; and it is a mere subtlety to set up any

    distinction between , them- Some of the author ' s minor suggestions are well deserving of the attention of an enlightened legislature . We ' w <) tlld !' hotice in particular his idea of restraining juvenile delinquency toy holding the parents legally responsible instead of thfe children ^'

    Untitled Article

    796 On PiwthmenL

    Untitled Article

    A

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Oct. 2, 1834, page 736, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2638/page/62/