評論
打印
The uncontrollable brute whom I want put out of the way is not to be punished for his misdeeds, nor used as an example or a warning; he is to be killed for the protection of others, like the wolf that escaped not long ago in a Connecticut suburb. No anger, vindictiveness or moral conceit need preside over the removal of such dangers. But a man's inability to control his violent impulses or to imagine the fatal consequences of his acts should be a presumptive reason for his elimination from society. This generally covers drunken driving and teen-age racing on public highways, as well as incurable obsessive violence; it might be extended (as I shall suggest later) to other acts that destroy, precisely, the moral basis of civilization.
我認(rèn)為剔除無法無天的惡棍，既不是為了懲罰其罪行，也不是為了殺雞嚇猴，而是為了保護他人的安全才將其處死，就象前不久在康涅狄格州郊區(qū)殺死逃出的那只惡狼一樣。靠憤怒的情緒、復(fù)仇的心理或道德觀念來處決這類禍害是行不通的。如果一個人既不能控制他的暴力沖動，又不能顧及他的行動所導(dǎo)致的致人于死的惡果，那么就有充分理由將他從社會中淘汰。這種暴力沖動一般包括在公路上酗酒開車，青少年在公路上駕車追逐以及其他不可救藥的瘋狂的暴力行為，而且還可以擴大到(下文我將要提出的)一些的確毀滅人類文明道德基礎(chǔ)的其他行為。
But why kill? I am ready to believe the statistics tending to show that the prospect of his own death does not stop the murderer. For one thing he is often a blind egotist , who cannot conceive the possibility of his own death. For another, detection would have to be infallible to deter the more imaginative who, although afraid, think they can escape discovery. Lastly, as Shaw long ago pointed out, hanging the wrong man will deter as effectively as hanging the right one. So, once again, why kill: If I agree that moral progress means an increasing respect for human life, how can I oppose abolition?
但是，為什么要把人殺掉呢?我很相信那些證明殺人犯并沒有因自己可能被處死而罷手的統(tǒng)計數(shù)字。首先是因為殺人犯往往是一些魯莽的極端利己主義者，想不到自己也可能被殺。其次是偵察必須完全可靠，才能對那些盡管提心吊膽但仍以為能逃出法網(wǎng)的狡猾的罪犯起到威懾作用。第三，正如肖伯納早就指出過的，殺一個不該殺的人和殺一個該殺的人具有同樣的威懾效果。這樣，人們不禁又要問：為什么非要置人于死地不可呢?既然我認(rèn)為道德上的進步就意味著越來越尊重人的生命，我又怎能反對廢除死刑呢?
