From the violation of engagements among criminals, what evil can be apprehended?---That unanimity shall be wanting among them?---that their enterprises shall be unsuccessful?---that their associations shall be dissolved? It is proverbially said, ``there is honour among thieves''.
The honour which cements their conspiracies is the pest of society.Why should we not seek inspire them with the highest degree of distrust toward each other?---why should we not arm them against each other, and make them fear lest they should find an informer in every accomplice? Wherefore should we not seek to fill them with a desire to inform against and mutually to destroy each other; so that each one, uneasy and trembling in the midst of his fellows, should fear his companions as much as his judges, nor be able to hope for security but in the renunciation of his crimes.This is exactly what the consideration of the public welfare would lead us to wish;and if we are to be turned aside from the care of this object by regard to the fidelity of thieves and murderers to their engagements, for a still stronger reason, from humanity, ought we to abstain from punishing their crimes.
Beccaria, upon just ground, condemns the sovereigns and judges, who after having enticed an offender to become an informer, afterwards violate their promise, and render it illusory.In this case we need not fear to give vent to the feelings of horror and indignation which so mischievous a proceeding inspires.It is mischievous in the highest possible degree, It destroys all future confidence in similar offers, and renders powerless this most necessary instrument.It cements, instead of weakening, the union of criminals among themselves, and causes government itself to appear as the guardian of their society, by adding mockery to the rigour of the law, by punishing the individual who has confided in its promises.
``But'', says Beccaria, `` society authorizes treason, detested even by criminals among the themselves.'' We have already seen what is to be understood by this treason.It is natural to criminals to detest it---it is their ruin: it ought to be approved by honest men--it is their safeguard.It will introduce crimes of cowardice and baseness.No: it will introduce acts of prudence, of penitence, and of public utility it will operate as an antidote to all crimes.These pretended crimes of cowardice are more injurious to a nation than the crimes of courage.The truth is exactly the reverse: which produce most alarm in society, privately stealing and swindling on the one side or highway robbery and murder on the other? The tribunal which employs this expedient, discovers its uncertainty.It discovers that it can know nothing without having learnt it.By what means can a judge attain to certainty without witnesses? In what country is it customary for criminals to make the judges the confidants of their misdeeds and their plans? The law exhibits its feebleness, in imploring the assistance even of him who has broken it.
The law seeks the offender who flies from it: if the means employed for his discovery are effectual, it only exhibits its wisdom.
But if rewards are to be bestowed upon criminals who denounce their accomplices Beccaria desires that it may be in virtue of `` a general law, which should promise impunity to every accomplice who discovers a crime, rather than by a particular declaration in each particular case.'' The reason he assigns is, that ``such a law would prevent the combination of malefactors, by inspiring each of them with the fear of exposing himself alone, to danger, and that it would not serve to give that boldness to the wicked, who see that there are some cases in which their services are required.'' But we have already observed, that the particular declaration equally serves to prevent this combination, and that it is the general law which tends to give boldness to the wicked, and even creates the belief that justice cannot be executed without them.
``A law of this nature'', adds Beccaria, ``ought to join to impunity the banishment of the informer.''
A condition of this nature could only serve to render the law inefficacious in a variety of cases, and also contains a contradiction in terms.A law joining banishment to impunity! Is not banishment a punishment?{Note}
