登陆注册
15792600000007

第7章

Let me take an illustration, which can be stated in a few words, to show how the social end which is aimed at by a rule of law is obscured and only partially attained in consequence of the fact that the rule owes its form to a gradual historical development, instead of being reshaped as a whole, with conscious articulate reference to the end in view.We think it desirable to prevent one man's property being misappropriated by another, and so we make larceny a crime.The evil is the same whether the misappropriation is made by a man into whose hands the owner has put the property, or by one who wrongfully takes it away.But primitive law in its weakness did not get much beyond an effort to prevent violence, and very naturally made a wrongful taking, a trespass, part of its definition of the crime.In modem times the judges enlarged the definition a little by holding that, if the wrong-doer gets possession by a trick or device, the crime is committed.This really was giving up the requirement of trespass, and it would have been more logical, as well as truer to the present object of the law, to abandon the requirement altogether.That, however, would have seemed too bold, and was left to statute.Statutes were passed making embezzlement a crime.But the force of tradition caused the crime of embezzlement to be regarded as so far distinct from larceny that to this day, in some jurisdictions at least, a slip corner is kept open for thieves to contend, if indicted for larceny, that they should have been indicted for embezzlement, and if indicted for embezzlement, that they should have been indicted for larceny, and to escape on that ground.

Far more fundamental questions still await a better answer than that we do as our fathers have done.What have we better than a blind guess to show that the criminal law in its present form does more good than harm?

I do not stop to refer to the effect which it has had in degrading prisoners and in plunging them further into crime, or to the question whether fine and imprisonment do not fall more heavily on a criminal's wife and children than on himself.I have in mind more far-reaching questions.Does punishment deter? Do we deal with criminals on proper principles? A modern school of Continental criminalists plumes itself on the formula, first suggested, it is said, by Gall, that we must consider the criminal rather than the crime.The formula does not carry us very far, but the inquiries which have been started look toward an answer of my questions based on science for the first time.If the typical criminal is a degenerate, bound to swindle or to murder by as deep seated an organic necessity as that which makes the rattlesnake bite, it is idle to talk of deterring him by the classical method of imprisonment.He must be got rid of; he cannot be improved, or frightened out of his structural reaction.If, on the other hand, crime, like normal human conduct, is mainly a matter of imitation, punishment fairly may be expected to help to keep it out of fashion.

The study of criminals has been thought by some well known men of science to sustain the former hypothesis.The statistics of the relative increase of crime in crowded places like large cities, where example has the greatest chance to work, and in less populated parts, where the contagion spreads more slowly, have been used with great force in favor of the latter view.But there is weighty authority for the belief that, however this may be, "not the nature of the crime, but the dangerousness of the criminal, constitutes the only reasonable legal criterion to guide the inevitable social reaction against the criminal."The impediments to rational generalization, which I illustrated from the law of larceny, are shown in the other branches of the law, as well as in that of crime.Take the law of tort or civil liability for damages apart from contract and the like.Is there any general theory of such liability, or are the cases in which it exists simply to be enumerated, and to be explained each on its special ground, as is easy to believe from the fact that the right of action for certain well known classes of wrongs like trespass or slander has its special history for each class?

I think that the law regards the infliction of temporal damage by a responsible person as actionable, if under the circumstances known to him the danger of his act is manifest according to common experience, or according to his own experience if it is more than common, except in cases where upon special grounds of policy the law refuses to protect the plaintiff or grants a privilege to the defendant.I think that commonly malice, intent, and negligence mean only that the danger was manifest to a greater or less degree, under the circumstances known to the actor, although in some cases of privilege malice may mean an actual malevolent motive, and such a motive may take away a permission knowingly to inflict harm, which otherwise would be granted on this or that ground of dominant public good.But when I stated my view to a very eminent English judge the other day, he said, "You are discussing what the law ought to be; as the law is, you must show a right.A man is not liable for negligence unless he is subject to a duty." If our difference was more than a difference in words, or with regard to the proportion between the exceptions and the rule, then, in his opinion, liability for an act cannot be referred to the manifest tendency of the act to cause temporal damage in general as a sufficient explanation, but must be referred to the special nature of the damage, or must be derived from some special circumstances outside of the tendency of the act, for which no generalized explanation exists.I think that such a view is wrong, but it is familiar, and I dare say generally is accepted in England.

同类推荐
  • 壹输卢迦论

    壹输卢迦论

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。
  • Following the Equator

    Following the Equator

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。
  • 正一论

    正一论

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。
  • 商山夜闻泉

    商山夜闻泉

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。
  • The Library

    The Library

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。
热门推荐
  • 一缕清烟游五国

    一缕清烟游五国

    秦嫣一次偶然的上街遇到了刻有她名字的银镯,因摊主的一句“三年后,它能带给你更大的好运。”从小一向倒霉的秦嫣毫不犹豫的买下了它,日子一样平淡的过,直到三年后............一场事故,秦嫣来到了一个陌生的世界—久合大陆,古代的时空,灵魂的穿越,她不知自己是谁,在这里她遇到了她宿命中的五个男人,开始了她的宿命.........
  • 神奇宝贝之银的天空

    神奇宝贝之银的天空

    没有人可以预测未来,没有人可以知道自己下一秒会发生什么。但是,为什么现在发生的一切我都好像似曾相识?为什么,我会认识这么多我从来没有遇见的人?我是天才,或者,我是疯子!
  • tfboys说好的十年

    tfboys说好的十年

    若要我重新选择,我还是会选择与你们相遇,因为有你们的地方才有阳光。---田文萱我知道陪伴是最长久的告白,我愿意用一切,换你的幸福。---易烊千玺你是我一生忘不掉的人,累了痛了我相信我可以给你依靠的肩膀。---王俊凯也许在你心里我永远都是那个傻傻呆呆的少年,但是我真的好想问,你的心可以容得下我么?---王源
  • 梵天战歌

    梵天战歌

    梵天大陆七大势力蝉寂寺,无定海国,青羽仙殿,天狱,冰林,虚炎谷和南焰圣地都有神轮强者镇守。宋鸿天此世为江宁国富家之子,此生本只想做一个称职的纨绔公子。但尘世间自有天命,谁说胖子不能练武,谁说纨绔不能成神?待得一日风云起,鸿天把酒问苍生!
  • 我的娇美老板娘

    我的娇美老板娘

    (最火新书)胸大腰细玉腿长,娇美还是老板娘;玄门传人吴庸奉命下山,从此展开一段热血征程;撩校花,泡美人,风流一世!医难病,治绝症,名扬四海!
  • 蜜宠校花:我把校草带回家

    蜜宠校花:我把校草带回家

    她五岁他六岁在同一所私立幼儿园“冷哲哥哥.雨含要吃棒棒糖你去给雨含买棒棒糖好不好.”“好.只要雨含喜欢的.冷哲哥哥一定帮你买.”——“冷哲哥哥.雨含去帮你买一个耳钉.”秦雨含小巧的穿过马路.去了一家奢侈店买了一对精美的耳钉.又穿过马路将耳钉放在一双稚嫩的手上.冷哲轩开心的摸摸秦雨含的脑袋.“我的雨含最乖了.”秦雨含蹦蹦跳跳的不料一辆车从对面撞过来.“冷哲哥哥小心.”秦雨含把冷哲轩推开.而她悲剧发生了.秦雨含车祸过后.秦父秦母将秦雨含带到国外去治疗..秦雨含改名慕雨含.11年后.来到一群学校.他校草她校花.无意之间碰撞火花.只可以并不知道对方就是自己的青梅竹马...要知后续请看下文.
  • 生物:细微之处显神奇

    生物:细微之处显神奇

    本书内容包括:细菌长什么样子、寄生菌的威力有多大、田园奇才放线菌、微生物治理地球环境、微生物中的“少数民族”、食物和炸药中的微生物、最大和最小的微生物、如何征服和消灭病菌等。
  • 倾城画师

    倾城画师

    身处异世,她,手执画笔,指点江山,冷静自持,以为自己从不会动情。他,身系国家,却不知觉中将一颗心交付与她。到底是谁先动的心,谁先乱的情,情不知所起,一往情深。红颜乱世,与君并肩齐行,不知可否?伦理纲常,不要也罢。花开花落,云卷云舒,看他们如何笑看天下。
  • 希望圣剑之圣帝

    希望圣剑之圣帝

    千万年前那场妖神大战,打破了苍穹,天妖封印。何为真相?何为正义?妖,神。究竟何为妖,何为神?何为神啊!
  • 七奈川上

    七奈川上

    一位家园破灭的绝路少年,遇到了一位海难生还的东瀛女孩。一位痴情的狐族少年,穿越凡世追寻自己转世的王妃。一位西域戎马的少女,不远万里找寻儿时的那个黑眸孩子。一位美丽的倾国倾城的公子,用卑鄙的人生诠释真爱的不平凡。从天山的风雪到凡世的车辙,从东瀛的岸边到钱塘的璇离,你要相信一定会有一个值得你去寻找的人。她可能漂洋过海,可能离落凡尘,可能会冰封千古,但请相信,只要你不放下脚步,那就是你的王妃。在这个白山黑水的空荡人世,在这个庞大空洞的浮躁世界,只要你找到她,你只需要找到她,握住她的手,然后,请相惜,你便是君临天下的王。