The Common Law eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 446 pages of information about The Common Law.

The Common Law eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 446 pages of information about The Common Law.

In all these cases punishment remains as an alternative.  A pain can be inflicted upon the wrong-doer, of a sort which does not restore the injured party to his former situation, or to another equally good, but which is inflicted for the very purpose of causing pain.  And so far as this punishment takes the place of compensation, whether on account of the death of the person to whom the wrong was done, the indefinite number of persons affected, the impossibility of estimating the worth of the suffering in money, or the poverty of the criminal, it may be said that one of its objects is to gratify the desire for vengeance.  The prisoner pays with his body.

The statement may be made stronger still, and it may be said, not only that the law does, but that it ought to, make the gratification of revenge an object.  This is the opinion, at any rate, of two authorities so great, and so opposed in other views, as Bishop Butler and Jeremy Bentham. 1 Sir James Stephen says, “The criminal law stands to the passion of revenge in much the same relation as marriage to the sexual appetite.” 2

The first requirement of a sound body of law is, that it should correspond with the actual feelings and demands of the community, whether right or wrong.  If people would gratify the passion of revenge outside of the law, if the law did not help them, the law has no choice but to satisfy the craving itself, and thus avoid the greater evil of private [42] retribution.  At the same time, this passion is not one which we encourage, either as private individuals or as lawmakers.  Moreover, it does not cover the whole ground.  There are crimes which do not excite it, and we should naturally expect that the most important purposes of punishment would be coextensive with the whole field of its application.  It remains to be discovered whether such a general purpose exists, and if so what it is.  Different theories still divide opinion upon the subject.

It has been thought that the purpose of punishment is to reform the criminal; that it is to deter the criminal and others from committing similar crimes; and that it is retribution.  Few would now maintain that the first of these purposes was the only one.  If it were, every prisoner should be released as soon as it appears clear that he will never repeat his offence, and if he is incurable he should not be punished at all.  Of course it would be hard to reconcile the punishment of death with this doctrine.

The main struggle lies between the other two.  On the one side is the notion that there is a mystic bond between wrong and punishment; on the other, that the infliction of pain is only a means to an end.  Hegel, one of the great expounders of the former view, puts it, in his quasi mathematical form, that, wrong being the negation of right, punishment is the negation of that negation, or retribution.  Thus the punishment must be equal, in the sense of proportionate to the crime, because its only function is to destroy it.  Others, without this logical apparatus, are content to rely upon a felt necessity that suffering should follow wrong-doing.

Copyrights
Project Gutenberg
The Common Law from Project Gutenberg. Public domain.