英文文獻翻譯:

On Crimes and Punishments

英文文獻:

Chapter 6.On Prosecution and Prescription.

The proofs of the crime being obtained, and the certainty of it determined, it is necessary to allow the criminal time and means for his justification;but a time so short as not to diminish that promptitude of punishment, which, as we have shewn, is one of the most powerful means of preventing crimes. A mistaken humanity may object to the shortness of the time, but the force of the objection will vanish if we consider that the danger of the innocent increases with the defects of the legislation.The time for inquiry and for justification should be fixed by the laws, and not by the judge, who, in that case, would become legislator. With regard to atrocious crimes, which are long remembered, when they are once proved, if the criminal have fled, no time should be allowed; but in less considerable and more obscure crimes, a time should be fixed, after which the delinquent should be no longer uncertain of his fate: for, in the latter case, the length of time, in which the crime is almost forgotten, prevents the example of impunity, and allows the criminal to amend, and become a better member of society.General principles will here be sufficient, it being impossible to fix precisely the limits of time for any given legislation, or for any society in any particular circumstance. I shall only add, that, in a nation willing to prove the utility of moderate punishment, laws which, according to the nature of the crime, increase or diminish the time of inquiry and justification, considering the imprisonment or the voluntary exile of the criminal as a part of the punishment, will form an easy division of a small number of mild punishments for a great number of crimes.But it must be observed, the time for inquiry and justification should not increase in direct proportion to the atrociousness of crimes; for the probability of such crimes having been committed is inversely as their atrociousness. Therefore the time for inquiring ought, in some cases, to be diminished, and that for justification increased, et vice verso. This may appear to contradict what I have said above, namely, that equal punishments may be decreed by unequal crimes, by considering the time allowed the criminal or the prison as a punishment. In order to explain this idea, I shall divide crimes into two classes. The first comprehends homicide, and all greater crimes; the second crimes of an inferior degree. This distinction is founded in human nature. The   preservation of life is a natural right; the preservation of property is a right of society. The motives that induce men to shake off the natural sentiment of compassion, which must be destroyed before great crimes can be committed, are much less in number than those by which, from the natural desire of being happy, they are instigated to violate a right which is not founded in the heart of man, but is the work of society. The different degrees of probability in these two classes, require that they should be regulated on different principles. In the greatest crimes, as they are less frequent, and the probability of the innocence of the accused being greater, the time allowed him for his justification should be greater, and the time of inquiry less. For by hastening the definitive sentence, the flattering hopes of impunity are destroyed, which are more dangerous as the crime is more atrocious. On the contrary, in crimes of less importance, the probability of the innocence being less, the time of inquiry should be greater, and that of justification less, as impunity is not so dangerous. But this division of crimes into two classes should not be admitted, if the consequences of impunity were in proportion to the probability of the crime. It should be considered, that a person accused, whose guilt or innocence is not determined for want of proofs, may be again imprisoned for the same crime, and be subject to a new trial, if fresh evidence arises within the time fixed.

中文翻譯：

論犯罪與刑罰

第六章：程序和實效

對犯罪進行查證并對其確定性做出計算之后，需要為犯人提供一定的時間和適當的方式為自己辯護。但是我們知道，刑罰的及時性是制止犯罪的重要手段之一，為了不影響刑罰的及時性，給犯人的辯護時間應是短暫的。曲解了人道主義的人反對限制辯護時間，實際上法制上的任何缺陷都會增加造成冤獄的危險。如果想到這一點，一切疑慮就會消失。但是，法律應該為犯人的辯護和查證犯罪確定一定的時間范圍。如果應當由法官為查證犯罪確定所需的時間，那么，法官就會變成立法者。對于長期印在人們腦海中的兇殘犯罪，只要事實確鑿，就沒有必要為在逃犯規定任何實效。對于那些較輕的和隱秘的犯罪，則應當通過時效消除公民對自己命運的憂慮。因為，某些犯罪所具有的長期不被發現的隱秘性，并不說明犯罪不受處罰，甚至還未罪犯保留著棄舊圖新的權利。我只能提綱挈領地講講，因為只能根據具體的法制和一個社會的具體環境來規定確切的時間。我要補充的只是：如果說一個國家的寬和刑罰已經顯示了優越性的話，法律根據犯罪的輕重程度縮短或延長時效時間及查證時間，使自我監禁和自行流放也成為刑罰的一部分，這將有助于用少數寬和的刑罰處置大量的犯罪。但是，犯罪的可能性同犯罪的兇殘性是成反比的，因而，查證的時間和實效的時間并不能完全根據犯罪的兇殘性而延長，審查的時間應該縮短，時效的時間則應該延長。這里似乎出現了一種同我在上面觀點相違背的矛盾：既然判決前的監禁或時效是一種刑罰，那么不同的犯罪就可以受到向同的懲罰。為了向讀者解釋我的觀點，我把犯罪分為兩類：第一類包括殺人等一切罪大惡極的兇殘犯罪；第二類就是那些較輕的犯罪。這種區分的根據就是人類的本性。財產安全是一種社會權利，往往有較多的動力促使人們為了滿足貪求幸福的天然本性，侵犯他們在社會常規中而不是心靈中發現的權利。與此相比，促使人們超越內心的自然憐憫感的動力則大大減少。這兩種相差懸殊的犯罪可能性決定了不同的制約原則。對于罕見的兇殘犯罪，應該根據犯人無辜可能性的增長，縮短審查時間，然而時效的時間則應該延長。因為，只有有罪或無罪的最終盤踞才能消除犯罪不受處罰的誘惑，而犯罪越是兇殘，這種誘惑的危害性就越大.。相反，對于較輕的犯罪，隨著犯人無辜可能性的減小，應該增加不予處罰的時間，縮短時效的時間。如果說犯罪的可能性增加多少，不予處罰的危害就降低多少的話，人們就不會同意把犯罪區分為這樣兩類。請注意：一個沒有確定有罪還是無罪的被告人，盡管因證據不足而被釋放，然而，只要為其犯罪所規定的時效時間還沒有過，一旦有暴露出法律所列舉的罪跡，他就可以因原罪行而重新遭受逮捕和審查。

原文出處：Of Crimes and Punishments,Cesare Bonesana,Marchese Beccaria.