評論
打印
I readily concede at the outset that present ways of dealing out capital punishment are as revolting as Mr. Koestler says in his harrowingvolume, Hanged by the Neck.
首先我愿意承認，置人于死的現有方式是令人震驚的，就象凱斯特勒先生在《絞刑》一書中所描寫的那樣慘不忍睹。
Like many of our prisons, our modes of execution should change.
與我國許多監獄的情況一樣，我們的行刑方式也應當改變。
But this objection to barbarity does not mean that capital punishment - or rather, judicial homicide - should not go on.
但是，反對野蠻并不意味著死刑--確切地說是按法律處死--應該廢除。
The illicit jump we find here, on the threshold of the inquiry, is characteristic of the abolitionist and must be disallowed at every point.
在開始探究這一問題時，我們就發現這種一下子就得出荒謬結論的做法是廢除派的一個特征。
Let us bear in mind the possibility of devising a painless, sudden and dignified death and see whether its administration is justifiable.
這種做法必須全面予以禁止。我們應該記住，有可能設計一種無痛苦、迅速而又威嚴的處死方式，并檢驗一下對這種方式的執行是否合理得當。
The four main arguments advanced against the death penalty are: 1) Punishment for crime is a primitive idea rooted in revenge;
提出反對死刑的四個主要論點是：(1)對犯罪的懲罰是在基于報復的一種原始觀念;
2) capital punishment does not deter; 3) judicial error being possible, taking life is an appalling risk;
(2)死刑并不起威懾作用;(3)審判上的失誤可能導致濫殺無辜之危險;
4) a civilized state, to deserve its name, must uphold, not violate, the sanctity of human life.
(4)文明國家應名符其實，對神圣不可侵犯的人生只能是維護而不容許褻瀆。
I entirely agree with the first pair of propositions, which is why, a moment ago, I replaced the term capital punishment with "judicial homicide."
我完全贊同前兩個論點，這就是為什么剛才我用"按法律處死"來代替"死刑"這個字眼的緣故。
