This does well enough for the purpose of illustrating8 the relative proportion of crimes to torts or wrongful acts in general, and, if a tiny dot be placed in the centre of the bull's-eye to represent those crimes which are actually punished, one gets an excellent idea of how infinitely9 small a number of these serve to keep the whole social fabric10 in order and sustain the majesty11 of the law. But the inference might naturally be drawn12 that whatever[Pg 2] was a crime must also be a tort or at least a wrong, which, while true in the majority of instances, is not necessarily the case in all. In a certain sense crimes are always wrongs or, at least, wrong, but only in the sense of being infractions of law are they always wrongs or wrong.
pic
The word wrong being the antithesis13 of the word right, and carrying with it generally some ethical14 or moral significance, will vary in its meaning according to the ideas of the individual who makes use of it. Indeed, it is conceivable that the only really right thing to do under certain circumstances would be to commit an act designated by law as a crime. So, conversely, while a wrong viewed as an infraction6 of the laws of God is a sin, that which is uni[Pg 3]versally held sinful is by no means always a crime. Speaking less broadly, a wrong is an infraction of a right belonging to another, which he derives16 from the law governing the society of which he is a member. Many wrongs are such that he may sue and obtain redress therefor in the courts. But it by no means follows that every crime involves the infraction of a private right or the commission of a tort. Thus "perjury17" and most crimes against the State are not torts at all. It will thus be seen that no accurate definition of a crime can be given save that it is an act or omission which the State punishes as such, and that technically18 the word carries with it no imputation19 or implication of sin, vice20, iniquity21, or in a broad sense even of wrong. The act may or may not be repugnant to our ideas of right. Numerically considered, only a minority of crimes have any ethical significance whatever, the majority being designated by the law itself as mala prohibita, rather than mala in se.
It is the duty of a prosecutor22 to see that infractions of the criminal law are punished and to represent the public in all proceedings23 had for that purpose, but, in view of what has just been said, it will be observed that his duties do not necessarily involve familiarity with vice, violence or even sin. The crimes he is called upon to prosecute25 may be disgusting, depraved and wicked, or they may be, and frequently are, interesting, ingenious, amusing or, possibly (though not probably), commendable26. For example, a man who chastises27 the foul28 slanderer29 of a young woman's character may have technically committed an assault of high degree, yet if he does so in the proper spirit, in a suitable place, and[Pg 4] makes the offender30 smart sufficiently, he deserves the thanks and congratulations of all decent men and honest women. Yet, indubitably, he has committed a crime, although, thanks to our still lingering spirit of chivalry31, he would never be stamped by any jury as a criminal.
A prosecutor is frequently asked if he does not find that his experience has a "hardening" effect.
"Why should it?" he might fairly reply. "I have to do with criminals, it is true, but the criminals as a rule are little or no worse than the classes of people outside from which they have been drawn. Their arrest and conviction are largely due to accidental causes, such as weak heads, warm hearts, quick temper, ignorance, foolishness or drunkenness. We see all of these characteristics in our immediate32 associates. A great many convicted persons have done acts which are not wrong at all, but are merely forbidden. Even where their acts are really wrong it is generally the stupid, the unfortunate, or the less skilful33 who are caught. For every rogue34 in jail there are at least ten thousand at large. The ones who escape are wiser and very likely meaner. Last, but not least, a very great number of the most despicable, wicked, and harmful deeds that can be committed are not crimes at all. The fact that a man is a criminal argues nothing at all against his general decency35, and when I meet a convict I assume, and generally assume correctly, that to most intents and purposes he is a gentleman. The code which puts one man in stripes and allows another to ride in an automobile36 is purely37 artificial, and strictly38 speaking proves not a whit39 which is the better man."
[Pg 5]
Now while such an answer might seem frivolous40 enough to the lay reader, it would nevertheless be substantially true. Your criminal, that is to say, strictly, the law-breaker who is brought to book for his offence, is very likely a pretty good sort of fellow as fellows go. If he has been guilty merely of an act which is prohibited, not because of its inherent wrong, but simply on grounds of public policy—malum prohibitum—he is probably as good as anybody. His offence may be due to ignorance or accident. Assuming that his crime be one which would seem to involve moral turpitude42—malum in se—there are very likely mitigating43 circumstances which render his offence, if not excusable, at least less reprehensible44 than would appear at first glance.
Crimes bear no absolute relation to one another. A murderer may or may not be worse than a thief,—and either may be better than his accuser. The actual danger of any particular offender to the community lies not so much in the kind or degree of crime which he may have committed as in the state of his mind. Even the criminals who are really criminal, in the sense that they have a systematic45 intention of defying the law and preying47 upon society, are generally not criminal in all directions, but usually only in one, so that taken upon their unprofessional side they present the same characteristics as ordinary and, roughly speaking, law-abiding citizens. The bank robber usually is a bank robber and nothing more. He specializes in that one pursuit. It is his vocation48 and his joy. He prides himself on the artistic49 manner in which he does his work. He would scorn to steal your watch and is a man of[Pg 6] honor outside of bank-breaking hours,—"Honor among thieves." Often enough he is a model husband and father. So, too, may be your forger50, gambler, swindler, burglar, highwayman, or thief,—any in fact except the real moral pervert51; and of course murder is entirely52 compatible on occasion with a noble, dignified53 and generous character. "There is nothing essentially54 incongruous between crime and culture." The prosecutor who begins by loathing55 and despising the man sitting at the bar may end by having a sincere admiration56 for his intellect, character or capabilities57. This by way of defence to crime in general.
Our forefathers58 contented59 themselves with a rough distinction between crimes as mala prohibita and mala in se. When they sought to classify criminal acts under this arrangement they divided them accordingly as the offence carried or did not carry with it a suggestion of moral turpitude. Broadly speaking, all felonies were and are regarded as mala in se. Murder, arson60, burglary, theft, etc., in general indubitably imply a depraved mind, while infractions of Sunday observance laws or of statutes62 governing the trade in liquor do not. Yet it must be perfectly63 clear that any such distinction is inconclusive.
There can be no general rule based merely on the name or kind of crime committed which is going to tell us which offender is really the worst. A misdemeanor may be very much more heinous64 than a felony. The adulterator of drugs or the employer of illegal child labor65 may well be regarded as vastly more reprehensible than the tramp who steals part of the family wash. So far as that goes there are an[Pg 7] alarming multitude of acts and omissions66 not forbidden by statute61 or classed as crimes which are to all intents and purposes fully67 as criminal as those designated as such by law. This is the inevitable68 result of the fact that crimes are not crimes merely because they are wrong, but because the State has enjoined69 them. For example, to push a blind man over the edge of a cliff so that he is killed upon the rocks below is murder, but to permit him to walk over it, although by stretching out your hand you might prevent him, is no crime at all. It is a crime to defame a woman's character if you write your accusation70 upon a slip of paper and pass it to another, but it is no crime in New York State to arise in a crowded lecture hall and ruin her forever by word of mouth. It is a crime to steal a banana off a fruit-stand, but it is no crime to borrow ten thousand dollars from a man whose entire fortune it is, although you have no expectation of returning it. You can be a swindler all your life—the meanest sort of a mean swindler, but there is no crime of being a swindler or of being a mean man. It is a crime to ruin a girl of seventeen years and eleven months, but not to ruin a girl of eighteen. The "age of consent" varies in the different States. It is a crime to obtain a dollar by means of a false statement as to a past or existing fact, but it is no crime to obtain as much money as you can by any other sort of a lie. Lying is not a crime, but lying under oath is a crime,—provided it be done in a legal proceeding24 and relates to a material matter. The most learned jurists habitually71 disagree as to what is material and what is not.
Even when the acts to be contrasted are all crimes[Pg 8] there is no way of actually discriminating72 between them except by carefully scrutinizing73 the circumstances of each. The so-called "degrees" mean little or nothing. If you steal four hundred and ninety-nine dollars out of a man's safe in the daytime it is grand larceny74 in the second degree. If you pick the same man's pocket of a subway ticket after sunset it is grand larceny in the first degree. You may get five years in the first instance and ten in the second. If you steal twenty-five dollars out of a bureau drawer you commit petty larceny and may be sent to prison for only one year.
If the degree of any particular crime of which a defendant75 is found guilty is no index to his real criminality or of his danger to society, still less is the name of the crime he has committed an index to his moral character, save in the case of certain offences which it is not necessary to enumerate76. Most men charged with homicide are indicted77 for murder in the first degree. This may be a wise course for the grand jury to pursue in view of the additional evidence which often comes to light during a trial. But it frequently is discovered before the case goes to the jury that in point of fact the killing78 was in hot blood and under circumstances which evince no great moral turpitude in the slayer79. For example, two drunken men become involved in an altercation80 and one strikes the other, who loses his equilibrium81 and falls, hitting his head against a curbstone and fracturing his skull82. The striker is indicted and tried for murder. Now he is doubtless guilty of manslaughter, but he is less dangerous to the community than a professional thief who preys83 upon the public by impersonating a gasman or telephone repairer and by thus gaining access to private[Pg 9] dwellings84 steals the owner's property. One is an accidental, the other an intentional85 criminal. One is hostile to society as a whole and the other is probably not really hostile to anybody. Yet the less guilty is denominated a murderer, and the other is rarely held guilty of more than petty larceny. A fellow who bumps into you on the street, if he be accompanied by another, and grabs your cane86, is guilty of robbery in the first degree,—"highway" robbery,—and may get twenty years for it, but the same man may publish a malicious87 libel about you, and by accusing you of the foulest88 practices rob you of your good name and be only guilty of a misdemeanor. Yet the reader should not infer that definitions and grades of crime capable of corresponding punishments are not proper, desirable, and necessary. Of course they are. The practical use of such statutes is to fix a maximum sentence of punishment. As a rule the minimum is anything the judge sees fit. Hence you may deduce a general principle to the effect that the charge against the prisoner, even assuming his guilt41, indicates nothing definite as to his moral turpitude, danger to the community, or general undesirability89.
But we may honestly go much further. Not only are the names and degrees of the crimes which a defendant may have committed of very little assistance in determining his real criminality, but the fact that he has committed them by no means signifies that he is morally any worse than some man who has committed no so-called crime at all. Many criminals, even those guilty of homicide, are as white as snow compared with others who have never transgressed90 the literal wording of a penal91 statute.
"We used to have So and So for our lawyer,"[Pg 10] remarked the president of a large street railway corporation. "He was always telling us what we couldn't do. Now we have Blank, and pay him one hundred thousand dollars a year to tell us how we can do the same things." The thief who can have the advice of able counsel "how to do it" need never go to jail.
Many of the things most abhorrent92 to our sense of right do not come within the scope of the criminal law. Omissions, no matter how reprehensible, are usually not regarded as criminal, because in most cases there is no technical legal duty to perform the act omitted. Thus, not to remove your neighbor's baby from the railroad track in front of an on-rushing train, although it would cause you very little trouble to do so, is no crime, even if the child's life be lost as a result of your neglect. You can let your mother-in-law choke to death without sending for a doctor, or permit a ruffian half your size to kill an old and helpless man, or allow your neighbor's house to burn down, he and his family peacefully sleeping inside it, while you play on the pianola and refuse to ring up the fire department, and never have to suffer for it—in this world.
Passing from felonies—mala in se—to misdemeanors—generally only mala prohibita—almost anything becomes a crime, depending upon the arbitrary act of the legislature.
It is a crime in New York State to run a horse race within a mile of where a court is sitting; to advertise as a divorce lawyer; to go fishing or "play" on the first day of the week; to set off fire-works or make a "disbursing93 noise"[1] at a military funeral in a city on Sunday; to arrest or attach a[Pg 11] corpse94 for payment of debt; to keep a "slot machine"; to do business under any name not actually your own full name without filing a certificate with the county clerk (as, for example, if, being a tailor, you call your shop "The P.D.Q. Tailoring Establishment"); to ride in a long-distance bicycle race more than twelve hours out of twenty-four; to shoe horses without complying with certain articles of the Labor Law; to fail to supply seats for female employés in a mercantile establishment; to steal a ride in a freight car, or to board such a car or train while in motion; to set fire negligently95 to one's own woods, by means of which the property of another is endangered; to run a ferry without authority, or, having contracted to run one, to fail to do so; to neglect to post ferry rates (under certain conditions) in English; to induce the employé of a railroad company to leave its service because it requires him to wear a uniform; to wear a railroad uniform without authority; to fish with a net in any part of the Hudson River (except where permitted by statute); to secretly loiter about a building with intent to overhear discourse96 therein, and to repeat the same to vex97 others (eavesdropping); to sell skimmed milk without a label; to plant oysters98 (if you are a non-resident) inside the State without the consent of the owner of the water; to maintain an insane asylum99 without a license100; to enter an agricultural fair without paying the entrance fee; to assemble with two or more other persons "disguised by having their faces painted, discolored, colored or concealed," save at a fancy-dress ball for which permission has been duly obtained from the police; or to wear the badge of the "Pa[Pg 12]trons of Husbandry," or of certain other orders without authority. These illustrations are selected at random101 from the New York Penal Code.
Where every business, profession, and sport is hedged around by such chevaux-de-frise of criminal statutes, he must be an extraordinarily102 careful as well as an exceptionally well-informed citizen who avoids sooner or later crossing the dead-line. It is to be deprecated that our law-makers can devise no other way of regulating our existences save by threatening us with the shaved head and striped shirt.
The actual effect of such a multitude of statutes making anything and everything crimes, punishable by imprisonment103, instead of increasing our respect for law, decreases it, unless they are intended to be and actually are enforced. Acts mala in se are lost in the shuffle104 among the acts mala prohibita, and we have to become students to avoid becoming criminals.
Year by year the legislature goes calmly on creating all sorts of new crimes, while failing to amplify105 or give effect to the various statutes governing existing offences which to a far greater degree are a menace to the community. For example, it is not a crime in New York State to procure106 money by false pretences107 provided the person defrauded108 parts with his money for an illegal purpose.[2]
In the McCord[3] case, in which the Court of Appeals established this extraordinary doctrine110, the defendant had falsely pretended to the complainant, a[Pg 13] man named Miller111, that he was a police officer and held a warrant for his arrest. By these means he had induced Miller to give him a gold watch and a diamond ring as the price of his liberty. The conviction in this case was reversed on the ground that Miller parted with his property for an unlawful purpose; but there was a very strong dissenting112 opinion from Mr. Justice Peckham, now a member of the bench of the Supreme113 Court of the United States.
In a second case, that of Livingston,[4] the complainant had been defrauded out of five hundred dollars by means of the "green-goods" game; but this conviction was reversed by the Appellate Division of the Second Department on the authority of the McCord case. The opinion was written by Mr. Justice Cullen, now Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, who says in conclusion:
"We very much regret being compelled to reverse this conviction. Even if the prosecutor intended to deal in counterfeit114 money, it is no reason why the appellant should go unwhipped of justice. We venture to suggest that it might be well for the legislature to alter the rule laid down in McCord vs. People."
Well might the judges regret being compelled to set a rogue at liberty simply because he had been ingenious enough to invent a fraud which involved the additional turpitude of seducing115 another into a criminal conspiracy116. Livingston was turned loose upon the community, in spite of the fact that he had swindled a man out of five hundred dollars, because he had incidentally led the latter to believe that in return he was to receive counterfeit money or "green goods" which might be put into circulation.[Pg 14] Yet, because, some years before, the judges of the Court of Appeals had, in the McCord matter, adopted the rule followed in civil cases, to wit, that as the complaining witness was himself in fault and did not come into court with clean hands he could have no standing117 before them, the Appellate Division in the next case felt obliged to follow them and to rule tantamount to saying that two wrongs could make a right and two knaves118 one honest man. It may seem a trifle unfair to put it in just this way, but when one realizes the iniquity of such a rule as applied119 to criminal cases, it is hard to speak softly. Thus the broad and general doctrine seemed to be established that so long as a thief could induce his victim to believe that it was to his advantage to enter into a dishonest transaction, he might defraud109 him to any extent in his power. Immediately there sprang into being hordes120 of swindlers, who, aided by adroit121 shyster lawyers, invented all sorts of schemes which involved some sort of dishonesty upon the part of the person to be defrauded. The "wire-tappers," of whom "Larry" Summerfield was the Napoleon, the "gold-brick" and "green-goods" men, and the "sick engineers" flocked to New York, which, under the unwitting protection of the Court of Appeals, became a veritable Mecca for persons of their ilk.
The "wire-tapping" game consisted in inducing the victim to put up money for the purpose of betting upon a "sure thing," knowledge of which the thief pretended to have secured by "tapping" a Western union wire of advance news of the races. He usually had a "lay out" which included telegraph instruments connected with a dry battery in an adjoining closet, and would merrily steal the sup[Pg 15]posed news off an imaginary wire and then send his dupe to play his money upon the "winner" in a pretended pool-room which in reality was nothing but a den3 of thieves, who instantly absconded122 with the money.
In this way one John Felix was defrauded out of fifty thousand dollars on a single occasion.[5] Now the simplest legislation could instantly remedy this evil and put all the "wire-tappers" and similar swindlers out of business, yet a bill framed and introduced in accordance with the suggestion of the highest court in the State was defeated. Instead the legislature passes scores of entirely innocuous and respectable acts like the following, which became a law in 1890:
An Act for the Prevention of Blindness
Section 1. Should ... nurse having charge of an [Pg 16]infant ... notice that one or both eyes of such infant are inflamed123 or reddened at any time within two weeks after its birth it shall be the duty of such nurse ... to report the fact in writing within six hours to the health officer or some legally qualified124 practitioner125 of medicine ...
Section 2. Any failure to comply with the provisions of this act shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars, or imprisonment not to exceed six months, or both.
The criminal law which had its origin when violence was rife126 is admirably adapted to the prevention, prosecuting127 and punishment of crude crimes, such as arson, rape128, robbery, burglary, mayhem, assault, homicide, and "common-law" larceny,—theft accompanied by a trespass129. In old times everything was against the man charged with crime—at least that was the attitude of the court and jury. "Aha!" exclaims the judge as the evidence goes in. "You thought you were stealing only a horse! But you stole a halter as well!" And the spectators are convulsed with merriment.
We take honest pride in the protection which our law affords to the indicted prisoner. It is the natural expression of our disapproval130 of a system which at the time of our severance131 from England ignored the rights of the individual for those of the community. We touched the lips of the defendant and gave him the right to speak in his own behalf. We gave him an unlimited132 right of appeal on any imaginable technicality.[6] But while we have been making it harder and harder to convict our common criminals, we have to a very great extent failed to recognize the fact that all sorts of new and ingenious crimes have come into existence with which the law in its present state is utterly133 unable to cope. The evolution of the modern corporation[Pg 17] has made possible larcenies134 to the punishment of which the law is entirely inadequate135. "Acts for the prevention of blindness" are perhaps desirable, but how about a few statutes to prevent the officers of insurance companies from arbitrarily diverting the funds of that vague host commonly alluded136 to as "widows and orphans"? The careless nurse is a criminal and may be confined in a penitentiary137; while perhaps a man who may be guilty of a great iniquity and known to be so drives nonchalantly off in his coach and four.
What is crime? We may well ask the question, only eventually to be confronted by that illuminating138 definition with which begins the Penal Code—"A crime is an act or omission forbidden by law and punishable upon conviction by ... penal discipline." Let us put on our glasses and find out what these acts or omissions are. When we have done that we may begin to look around for the criminals. But it will be of comparatively little assistance in finding the sinners.
So-called criminologists delight in measuring the width of the skulls139 between the eyes, the height of the foreheads, the length of the ears, and the angle of the noses of persons convicted of certain kinds of crimes, and prepare for the edification of the simple-minded public tables demonstrating that the burglar has this kind of a head, the pickpocket140 that sort of an ear, and the swindler such and such a variety of visage. Exhaustive treatises141 upon crime and criminals lay down general principles supposed to assist in determining the kind of crime for which any particular unfortunate may have a predilection142. One variety of criminal looks this way[Pg 18] and another looks that way. One has blue eyes, the other brown eyes.[7] Some look up, others look down. My friend, if you examine into the question, you will probably discover that the clerk who sells you your glass of soda143 water at the corner drug store will qualify for some one of these classes, so will your host at dinner this evening, so, very likely, will the family doctor or the pastor144 of your church.
The writer is informed that there has recently been produced an elaborate work on political criminals in which an attempt is made to set forth145 the telltale characteristics of such. It is explained that the tendency to commit such crimes may be inherited. You are about as likely to inherit an inclination146 to commit a political crime as you are to derive15 from a maiden147 aunt a tendency to violate a speed ordinance148 or make a "disbursing" noise.
Let some one codify149 all the sins and meannesses of mankind, let the legislatures make them crimes and affix150 appropriate penalties, then those of us who still remain outside the bars may with more propriety151 indulge ourselves in reflections at the expense of those who are not.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] New York Penal Code, Section 276.
[2] No longer the law of New York. After this book was published the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of Tracy for his $50,000 fraud upon Felix by means of the "wire-tapping" game and affirmed as law the doctrine of People vs. McCord. The author takes satisfaction in recording152 that the Legislature thereupon awoke to its duties and amended153 the penal code in such a fashion as to render such offences criminal.
[3] 46 New York 470.
[4] 47 App. Div. 283.
[5] The operations of these swindlers recently became so notorious that the District Attorney of New York County determined154 to prosecute the perpetrators of the Felix swindle, in spite of the fact that the offence appeared to come within the language of the Court of Appeals in the McCord and Livingston cases. Accordingly Christopher Tracy, alias155 Charles Tompkins, alias Topping, etc., etc., was indicted (on the theory of "trick and device") for the "common-law" larceny of Felix's fifty thousand dollars.
The trial came on before Judge Warren W. Foster in Part III of the General Sessions on February 27, 1906. A special panel quickly supplied a jury, which, after hearing the evidence, returned a verdict of guilty in short order.
It now remains156 for the judges of the Court of Appeals to decide whether they will extend the doctrine of the McCord and Livingston cases to a fraud of this character, whether they will limit the doctrine strictly to cases of precisely157 similar facts, or whether they will frankly158 refuse to be bound by any such absurd and iniquitous159 theory and consign160 the McCord case to the dust-heap of discarded and mistaken doctrines161, where it rightfully belongs. Their action will determine whether the perpetrators of the most ingenious, elaborate and successful bunco game in the history of New York County shall be punished for their offence or instead be turned loose to prey46 at will upon the community at large. (See "The Last of the Wire-Tappers" in the American Magazine for June, 1906; also incorporated in the author's "True Stories of Crime," pp. 103-121, published by Charles Scribner's Sons, 1908.)
[6] Cf. in general, references given infra, p. 339.
[7] The following appeared in the New York Globe for April 25, 1905: "Criminal eyes—It is well known," says Dr. Beddoe, F.R.S., "that brown eyes and dark hair are particularly common among the criminal classes. An American observer calls the brown the criminal eye, etc., etc."
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
omission
|
|
| n.省略，删节；遗漏或省略的事物，冗长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
den
|
|
| n.兽穴；秘密地方；安静的小房间，私室 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
illustrated
|
|
| adj. 有插图的，列举的 动词illustrate的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
aggregate
|
|
| adj.总计的，集合的；n.总数；v.合计；集合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
infraction
|
|
| n.违反；违法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
redress
|
|
| n.赔偿，救济，矫正；v.纠正，匡正，革除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
illustrating
|
|
| 给…加插图( illustrate的现在分词 )； 说明； 表明； （用示例、图画等）说明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
infinitely
|
|
| adv.无限地，无穷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
fabric
|
|
| n.织物，织品，布；构造，结构，组织 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
majesty
|
|
| n.雄伟，壮丽，庄严，威严；最高权威，王权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
antithesis
|
|
| n.对立；相对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
ethical
|
|
| adj.伦理的，道德的，合乎道德的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
derive
|
|
| v.取得；导出；引申；来自；源自；出自 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
derives
|
|
| v.得到( derive的第三人称单数 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
perjury
|
|
| n.伪证；伪证罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
technically
|
|
| adv.专门地，技术上地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
imputation
|
|
| n.归罪，责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
vice
|
|
| n.坏事；恶习；[pl.]台钳，老虎钳；adj.副的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
iniquity
|
|
| n.邪恶；不公正 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
prosecutor
|
|
| n.起诉人；检察官，公诉人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
prosecute
|
|
| vt.告发；进行；vi.告发，起诉，作检察官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
commendable
|
|
| adj.值得称赞的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
chastises
|
|
| v.严惩（某人）（尤指责打）( chastise的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
foul
|
|
| adj.污秽的；邪恶的；v.弄脏；妨害；犯规；n.犯规 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
slanderer
|
|
| 造谣中伤者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
offender
|
|
| n.冒犯者，违反者，犯罪者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
chivalry
|
|
| n.骑士气概，侠义；（男人）对女人彬彬有礼，献殷勤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
skilful
|
|
| (=skillful)adj.灵巧的，熟练的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
rogue
|
|
| n.流氓；v.游手好闲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
decency
|
|
| n.体面，得体，合宜，正派，庄重 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
automobile
|
|
| n.汽车，机动车 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
whit
|
|
| n.一点，丝毫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
frivolous
|
|
| adj.轻薄的；轻率的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
guilt
|
|
| n.犯罪；内疚；过失，罪责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
turpitude
|
|
| n.可耻；邪恶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
mitigating
|
|
| v.减轻，缓和( mitigate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
reprehensible
|
|
| adj.该受责备的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
systematic
|
|
| adj.有系统的，有计划的，有方法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
prey
|
|
| n.被掠食者，牺牲者，掠食；v.捕食，掠夺，折磨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
preying
|
|
| v.掠食( prey的现在分词 )；掠食；折磨；（人）靠欺诈为生 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
vocation
|
|
| n.职业，行业 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
artistic
|
|
| adj.艺术(家)的，美术(家)的；善于艺术创作的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
forger
|
|
| v.伪造；n.（钱、文件等的）伪造者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
pervert
|
|
| n.堕落者，反常者；vt.误用，滥用；使人堕落，使入邪路 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
dignified
|
|
| a.可敬的，高贵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
loathing
|
|
| n.厌恶，憎恨v.憎恨，厌恶( loathe的现在分词)；极不喜欢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
admiration
|
|
| n.钦佩，赞美，羡慕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
capabilities
|
|
| n.能力( capability的名词复数 )；可能；容量；[复数]潜在能力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
forefathers
|
|
| n.祖先，先人；祖先，祖宗( forefather的名词复数 )；列祖列宗；前人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
contented
|
|
| adj.满意的，安心的，知足的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
arson
|
|
| n.纵火，放火 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
statute
|
|
| n.成文法，法令，法规；章程，规则，条例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
statutes
|
|
| 成文法( statute的名词复数 )； 法令； 法规； 章程 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
heinous
|
|
| adj.可憎的，十恶不赦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
omissions
|
|
| n.省略( omission的名词复数 )；删节；遗漏；略去或漏掉的事（或人） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
enjoined
|
|
| v.命令( enjoin的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
accusation
|
|
| n.控告，指责，谴责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
habitually
|
|
| ad.习惯地，通常地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
discriminating
|
|
| a.有辨别能力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
scrutinizing
|
|
| v.仔细检查，详审( scrutinize的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
larceny
|
|
| n.盗窃（罪） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
defendant
|
|
| n.被告；adj.处于被告地位的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
enumerate
|
|
| v.列举，计算，枚举，数 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
indicted
|
|
| 控告，起诉( indict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
killing
|
|
| n.巨额利润；突然赚大钱，发大财 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
slayer
|
|
| n. 杀人者，凶手 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
altercation
|
|
| n.争吵，争论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
equilibrium
|
|
| n.平衡，均衡，相称，均势，平静 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
skull
|
|
| n.头骨；颅骨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
preys
|
|
| v.掠食( prey的第三人称单数 )；掠食；折磨；（人）靠欺诈为生 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
dwellings
|
|
| n.住处，处所( dwelling的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
intentional
|
|
| adj.故意的，有意（识）的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
cane
|
|
| n.手杖，细长的茎，藤条；v.以杖击，以藤编制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
malicious
|
|
| adj.有恶意的，心怀恶意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
foulest
|
|
| adj.恶劣的( foul的最高级 )；邪恶的；难闻的；下流的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
undesirability
|
|
| n.不受欢迎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
transgressed
|
|
| v.超越( transgress的过去式和过去分词 )；越过；违反；违背 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
penal
|
|
| adj.刑罚的；刑法上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
abhorrent
|
|
| adj.可恶的，可恨的，讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
disbursing
|
|
| v.支出，付出( disburse的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
corpse
|
|
| n.尸体，死尸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
negligently
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
discourse
|
|
| n.论文，演说；谈话；话语；vi.讲述，著述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
vex
|
|
| vt.使烦恼，使苦恼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
oysters
|
|
| 牡蛎( oyster的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
asylum
|
|
| n.避难所，庇护所，避难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
license
|
|
| n.执照，许可证，特许；v.许可，特许 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
random
|
|
| adj.随机的；任意的；n.偶然的(或随便的)行动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
extraordinarily
|
|
| adv.格外地；极端地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
imprisonment
|
|
| n.关押，监禁，坐牢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
shuffle
|
|
| n.拖著脚走，洗纸牌；v.拖曳，慢吞吞地走 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
amplify
|
|
| vt.放大，增强；详述，详加解说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
pretences
|
|
| n.假装( pretence的名词复数 )；作假；自命；自称 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
defrauded
|
|
| v.诈取，骗取( defraud的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
defraud
|
|
| vt.欺骗，欺诈 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
miller
|
|
| n.磨坊主 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
dissenting
|
|
| adj.不同意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
counterfeit
|
|
| vt.伪造，仿造；adj.伪造的，假冒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
seducing
|
|
| 诱奸( seduce的现在分词 )； 勾引； 诱使堕落； 使入迷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
conspiracy
|
|
| n.阴谋，密谋，共谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
knaves
|
|
| n.恶棍，无赖( knave的名词复数 )；（纸牌中的）杰克 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
hordes
|
|
| n.移动着的一大群( horde的名词复数 )；部落 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
adroit
|
|
| adj.熟练的，灵巧的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
absconded
|
|
| v.（尤指逃避逮捕）潜逃，逃跑( abscond的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
inflamed
|
|
| adj.发炎的，红肿的v.（使）变红，发怒，过热( inflame的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
qualified
|
|
| adj.合格的，有资格的，胜任的，有限制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
practitioner
|
|
| n.实践者，从事者；(医生或律师等)开业者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
rife
|
|
| adj.(指坏事情)充斥的，流行的，普遍的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
prosecuting
|
|
| 检举、告发某人( prosecute的现在分词 )； 对某人提起公诉； 继续从事（某事物）； 担任控方律师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
rape
|
|
| n.抢夺，掠夺，强奸；vt.掠夺，抢夺，强奸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
trespass
|
|
| n./v.侵犯，闯入私人领地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
disapproval
|
|
| n.反对，不赞成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
severance
|
|
| n.离职金；切断 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
unlimited
|
|
| adj.无限的，不受控制的，无条件的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
utterly
|
|
| adv.完全地，绝对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
larcenies
|
|
| n.盗窃（罪）( larceny的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
135
inadequate
|
|
| adj.(for,to)不充足的，不适当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
alluded
|
|
| 提及，暗指( allude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
penitentiary
|
|
| n.感化院；监狱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
illuminating
|
|
| a.富于启发性的，有助阐明的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
skulls
|
|
| 颅骨( skull的名词复数 )； 脑袋； 脑子； 脑瓜 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
pickpocket
|
|
| n.扒手；v.扒窃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
treatises
|
|
| n.专题著作，专题论文，专著( treatise的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
predilection
|
|
| n.偏好 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
soda
|
|
| n.苏打水；汽水 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
pastor
|
|
| n.牧师，牧人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
inclination
|
|
| n.倾斜；点头；弯腰；斜坡；倾度；倾向；爱好 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
maiden
|
|
| n.少女，处女；adj.未婚的，纯洁的，无经验的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
ordinance
|
|
| n.法令；条令；条例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
codify
|
|
| v.将法律、法规等编成法典 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
affix
|
|
| n.附件，附录 vt.附贴，盖(章)，签署 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
propriety
|
|
| n.正当行为；正当；适当 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
recording
|
|
| n.录音，记录 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
Amended
|
|
| adj. 修正的 动词amend的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
alias
|
|
| n.化名；别名；adv.又名 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
frankly
|
|
| adv.坦白地，直率地；坦率地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
iniquitous
|
|
| adj.不公正的；邪恶的；高得出奇的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
consign
|
|
| vt.寄售（货品），托运，交托，委托 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
doctrines
|
|
| n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 )；教义；学说；（政府政策的）正式声明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |