評論
打印
The Western peoples' revulsionfrom power in domestic and foreign policy has made of the state a sort of counterpart of the bank robber: both having power and neither knowing how to use it. Both waste lives because hypnotized by irrelevant ideas and crippled by contradictory emotions. If psychiatry were sure of its ground in diagnosing the individual case, a philosopher might consider whether such dangerous obsessions should not be guarded against by judicial homicide before the shooting starts.
西方人民在國內(nèi)和外交政策上對權(quán)力的厭惡，已使國家成為銀行搶劫犯的某種相對稱的東西。二者都有權(quán)，又都不知如何使用。二者糟踏生命都在于對混雜的思想著了迷和陷于矛盾的感情而不能自拔。如果精神病學(xué)家在診斷這種病例時，對自己的診斷確有把握，那么哲學(xué)家也許應(yīng)考慮一下，為了防止這種危險的著迷，是否應(yīng)在槍殺開始前，就由法院將此人處死。
I raise the question not indeed to recommend the prophylactic execution of potential murderers, but to introduce the last two perplexities that the abolitionists dwarf or obscure by their concentration on changing an isolated penalty. One of these is the scale by which to judge the offenses society wants to repress. I can for example imagine a truly democratic state in which it would be deemed a form of treason punishable by death to create a disturbance in any court or deliberative assembly. The aim would be to recognize the sanctity of orderly discourse in arriving at justice, assessing criticism and defining policy. Under such a law, a natural selection would operate to remove permanently from the scene persons who, let us say, neglect argument in favor of banging on the desk with their shoe.
我提出這樣一個問題的用意決不是主張要對那些可能成為殺人犯的人還在他們沒有機會作案之前就預(yù)先實行處決。我的目的只是要由此引出最后兩個復(fù)雜的問題。這兩個復(fù)雜問題曾由于廢除派一心只想到要改變孤立的懲罰方式而被忽略或混淆了。其一是社會所需的對應(yīng)予以懲罰的犯法行為的量刑標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。比方說，我就可以想象有這樣一個真正的民主國家，在這個國家里任何在法庭或?qū)徸h會上滋事?lián)v亂的行為都會被定為叛逆罪，處以死刑。制訂了這種法律的目的是為了使人們意識到會議秩序的神圣性。在裁定是非、評估得失及解釋政策的過程中必須保證辯論有秩序地進行。有了這樣的法律，那些不是盡力以理服人而是動輒就脫鞋子拍桌子的人就會被自然淘汰掉，永遠沒有機會再占席位了。
