评论
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.
西方人民在国内和外交政策上对权力的厌恶，已使国家成为银行抢劫犯的某种相对称的东西。二者都有权，又都不知如何使用。二者糟踏生命都在于对混杂的思想着了迷和陷于矛盾的感情而不能自拔。如果精神病学家在诊断这种病例时，对自己的诊断确有把握，那么哲学家也许应考虑一下，为了防止这种危险的着迷，是否应在枪杀开始前，就由法院将此人处死。
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.
我提出这样一个问题的用意决不是主张要对那些可能成为杀人犯的人还在他们没有机会作案之前就预先实行处决。我的目的只是要由此引出最后两个复杂的问题。这两个复杂问题曾由于废除派一心只想到要改变孤立的惩罚方式而被忽略或混淆了。其一是社会所需的对应予以惩罚的犯法行为的量刑标准。比方说，我就可以想象有这样一个真正的民主国家，在这个国家里任何在法庭或审议会上滋事捣乱的行为都会被定为叛逆罪，处以死刑。制订了这种法律的目的是为了使人们意识到会议秩序的神圣性。在裁定是非、评估得失及解释政策的过程中必须保证辩论有秩序地进行。有了这样的法律，那些不是尽力以理服人而是动辄就脱鞋子拍桌子的人就会被自然淘汰掉，永远没有机会再占席位了。
