犯罪与刑罚外文翻译（英译中）

分类：答辩资料    更新时间：11-23    来源：网络

 英文文献翻译:

On Crimes and Punishments

英文文献:

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.

中文翻译：

论犯罪与刑罚

第六章：程序和实效

对犯罪进行查证并对其确定性做出计算之后，需要为犯人提供一定的时间和适当的方式为自己辩护。但是我们知道，刑罚的及时性是制止犯罪的重要手段之一，为了不影响刑罚的及时性，给犯人的辩护时间应是短暂的。曲解了人道主义的人反对限制辩护时间，实际上法制上的任何缺陷都会增加造成冤狱的危险。如果想到这一点，一切疑虑就会消失。但是，法律应该为犯人的辩护和查证犯罪确定一定的时间范围。如果应当由法官为查证犯罪确定所需的时间，那么，法官就会变成立法者。对于长期印在人们脑海中的凶残犯罪，只要事实确凿，就没有必要为在逃犯规定任何实效。对于那些较轻的和隐秘的犯罪，则应当通过时效消除公民对自己命运的忧虑。因为，某些犯罪所具有的长期不被发现的隐秘性，并不说明犯罪不受处罚，甚至还未罪犯保留着弃旧图新的权利。我只能提纲挈领地讲讲，因为只能根据具体的法制和一个社会的具体环境来规定确切的时间。我要补充的只是：如果说一个国家的宽和刑罚已经显示了优越性的话，法律根据犯罪的轻重程度缩短或延长时效时间及查证时间，使自我监禁和自行流放也成为刑罚的一部分，这将有助于用少数宽和的刑罚处置大量的犯罪。但是，犯罪的可能性同犯罪的凶残性是成反比的，因而，查证的时间和实效的时间并不能完全根据犯罪的凶残性而延长，审查的时间应该缩短，时效的时间则应该延长。这里似乎出现了一种同我在上面观点相违背的矛盾：既然判决前的监禁或时效是一种刑罚，那么不同的犯罪就可以受到向同的惩罚。为了向读者解释我的观点，我把犯罪分为两类：第一类包括杀人等一切罪大恶极的凶残犯罪；第二类就是那些较轻的犯罪。这种区分的根据就是人类的本性。财产安全是一种社会权利，往往有较多的动力促使人们为了满足贪求幸福的天然本性，侵犯他们在社会常规中而不是心灵中发现的权利。与此相比，促使人们超越内心的自然怜悯感的动力则大大减少。这两种相差悬殊的犯罪可能性决定了不同的制约原则。对于罕见的凶残犯罪，应该根据犯人无辜可能性的增长，缩短审查时间，然而时效的时间则应该延长。因为，只有有罪或无罪的最终盘踞才能消除犯罪不受处罚的诱惑，而犯罪越是凶残，这种诱惑的危害性就越大.。相反，对于较轻的犯罪，随着犯人无辜可能性的减小，应该增加不予处罚的时间，缩短时效的时间。如果说犯罪的可能性增加多少，不予处罚的危害就降低多少的话，人们就不会同意把犯罪区分为这样两类。请注意：一个没有确定有罪还是无罪的被告人，尽管因证据不足而被释放，然而，只要为其犯罪所规定的时效时间还没有过，一旦有暴露出法律所列举的罪迹，他就可以因原罪行而重新遭受逮捕和审查。

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