評(píng)論
打印
But Dr. Sheppard's vindicator is under no illusion as to the conditions that this "lucky" evader of the electric chair will face if he is granted parole after ten years: "It will carry with it no right to resume his life as a physician. His privilege to practice medicine was blotted out with his conviction. He must all his life bear the stigma of parolee, subject to unceremonious return to confinement for life for the slightest misstep. More than this, he must live out his life as a convicted murderer.
但謝潑德醫(yī)生的辯護(hù)人對(duì)于這位免受電椅之苦的"幸運(yùn)兒"，如果能在十年之后獲得假釋后所要面臨的情況并不抱任何幻想。"那樣也并不能給他恢復(fù)從醫(yī)生涯的權(quán)利。他的行醫(yī)資格早已隨著他的判刑定罪而被取消了。他必將終生蒙受假釋犯的惡名，只要再小有過(guò)失，便可隨時(shí)不經(jīng)審訊被送回監(jiān)獄。更糟的是，他得帶著殺人犯的罪名終其一生。"
What does the moral conscience of today think it is doing? If such a man is a dangerous repeater of violent acts? What right has the state to let him loose after ten years? What is, in fact, the meaning of a "life sentence" that peters out long before life? Paroling looks suspiciously like an expression of social remores for the pain of incarceration , coupled with a wish to avoid "unfavorable publicity" by freeing a suspect. The man is let out when the fuss has died down; which would mean that he was not under lock and key for our protection at all. He was being punished, just a little -for so prison seems in the abolitionist's distorted view, and in the jury's and the prosecutor's whose "second-degree" murder suggests killing someone "just a little,"
今天的道德觀念究竟在起一種什么樣的作用呢?假如一個(gè)人是個(gè)很可能重犯其暴力行為的危險(xiǎn)分子，國(guó)家有什么權(quán)利在十年后將他釋放出來(lái)呢?如果"終身監(jiān)禁"在其生前就早已結(jié)束，那"終身監(jiān)禁"的真正含義是什么呢?假釋表面上看起來(lái)似乎表現(xiàn)了社會(huì)對(duì)身受囹圄之苦者的同情，同時(shí)又反映了當(dāng)局想避免因公然釋放嫌疑犯而引起"公眾的不滿"的愿望。所以，一旦眾議平息下來(lái)，人犯也就放掉了。這樣，他也就根本沒(méi)有受到為了公眾的安全而設(shè)置的枷鎖的束縛。他確實(shí)受過(guò)懲罰，但只是一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)的懲罰--因?yàn)樵趶U除派、陪審團(tuán)及檢察官們的反常觀點(diǎn)看來(lái)，監(jiān)獄本來(lái)就是這么回事。他們所謂"二級(jí)謀殺"似乎是說(shuō)罪犯雖殺了人，但只是殺了"一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)"。
If, on the other hand, execution and life imprisonment are judged too severe and the accused is expected to be harmless hereafter- punishment being ruled out as illiberal- what has society gained by wrecking his life and damaging that of his family?
從另一方面來(lái)講，既然死刑和無(wú)期徒刑被認(rèn)為過(guò)分殘酷，而又可預(yù)期被告人在今后對(duì)社會(huì)不會(huì)有什么危險(xiǎn)--懲罰作為一種狹隘意識(shí)的反映已沒(méi)有存在的必要--那么，破壞他和他一家人的生活對(duì)社會(huì)又能帶來(lái)什么好處呢?
