Strictly4 speaking, a crime is an act forbidden by the law of the land, and one which is considered sufficiently5 serious to warrant providing penalties for its commission. It does not necessarily follow that this act is either good or bad; the punishment follows for the violation7 of the law and not necessarily for any moral transgression8. No doubt most of the things forbidden by the penal6 code are such as are injurious to the organized society of the time and place, and are usually of such a character as for a long period of time, and in most countries, have been classed as criminal. But even then it does not always follow that the violator of the law is not a person of higher type than the majority who are directly and indirectly9 responsible for the law.
It is apparent that a thing is not necessarily bad because it is forbidden by the law. Legislators are forever repealing11 and abolishing criminal statutes12, and organized society is constantly ignoring laws, until they fall into disuse and die. The laws against witchcraft13, the long line of "blue laws," the laws affecting religious beliefs and many social customs, are well-known examples of legal and innocent acts which legislatures and courts have once made criminal. Not only are criminal statutes always dying by repeal10 or repeated violation, but every time a legislature meets, it changes penalties for existing crimes and makes criminal certain acts that were not forbidden before.
Judging from the kind of men sent to the State legislatures and to Congress, the fact that certain things are forbidden does not mean that these things are necessarily evil; but rather, that politicians believe there is a demand for such legislation from the class of society that is most powerful in political action. No one who examines the question can be satisfied that a thing is intrinsically wrong because it is forbidden by a legislative14 body.
Other more or less popular opinions of the way to determine right or wrong are found to be no more satisfactory. Many believe that the question of whether an act is right or wrong is to be settled by a religious doctrine15; but the difficulties are still greater in this direction. First of all, this involves a thorough and judicial16 inquiry17 into the merits of many, if not all, forms of religion, an investigation which has never been made, and from the nature of things cannot be made. The fact is, that one's religious opinions are settled long before he begins to investigate and quite by other processes than reason. Then, too, all religious precepts18 rest on interpretation19, and even the things that seem the plainest have ever been subject to manifold and sometimes conflicting construction. Few if any religious commands can be, or ever were, implicitly20 relied on without interpretation. The command, "Thou shalt not kill," seems plain, but does even this furnish an infallible rule of conduct?
Of course this commandment could not be meant to forbid killing21 animals. Yet there are many people who believe that it does, or at least should. No Christian22 state makes it apply to men convicted of crime, or against killing in war, and yet a considerable minority has always held that both forms of killing violate the commandment. Neither can it be held to apply to accidental killings23, or killings in self-defense24, or in defense of property or family. Laws, too, provide all grades of punishment for different kinds of killing, from very light penalties up to death. Manifestly, then, the commandment must be interpreted, "Thou shalt not kill when it is wrong to kill," and therefore it furnishes no guide to conduct. As well say: "Thou shalt do nothing that is wrong." Religious doctrines25 do not and clearly cannot be adopted as the criminal code of a state.
In this uncertainty26 as to the basis of good and bad conduct, many appeal to "conscience" as the infallible guide. What is conscience? It manifestly is not a distinct faculty27 of the mind, and if it were, would it be more reliable than the other faculties28? It has been often said that some divine power implanted conscience in every human being. Apart from the question of whether human beings are different in kind from other organisms, which will be discussed later, if conscience has been placed in man by a divine power, why have not all peoples been furnished with the same guide? There is no doubt that all men of any mentality29 have what is called a conscience; that is, a feeling that certain things are right, and certain other things are wrong. This conscience does not affect all the actions of life, but probably the ones which to them are the most important. It varies, however, with the individual. What reason has the world to believe that conscience is a correct guide to right and wrong?
The origin of conscience is easily understood. One's conscience is formed as his habits are formed—by the time and place in which he lives; it grows with his teachings, his habits and beliefs. With most people it takes on the color of the community where they live. With some people the eating of pork would hurt their conscience; with others the eating of any meat; with some the eating of meat on Friday, and with others the playing of any game of chance for money, or the playing of any game on Sunday, or the drinking of intoxicating30 liquors. Conscience is purely31 a matter of environment, education and temperament32, and is no more infallible than any habit or belief. Whether one should always follow his own conscience is another question, and cannot be confounded with the question as to whether conscience is an infallible guide to conduct.
Some seek to avoid the manifold difficulties of the problem by saying that a "criminal" is one who is "anti-social." But does this bring us nearer to the light? An anti-social person is one whose life is hostile to the organization or the society in which he lives; one who injures the peace, contentment, prosperity or well-being33 of his neighbors, or the political or social organization in which his life is cast.
In this sense many of the most venerated34 men of history have been criminals; their lives and teachings have been in greater or lesser35 conflict with the doctrines, habits and beliefs of the communities where they lived. From the nature of things the wise man and the idealist can never be contented36 with existing things, and their lives are a constant battle for change. If the anti-social individual should be punished, what of many of the profiteers and captains of industry who manipulate business and property for purely selfish ends? What of many of our great financiers who use every possible reform and conventional catch word as a means of affecting public opinion, so that they may control the resources of the earth and exploit their fellows for their own gain?
No two men have the same power of adaptation to the group, and it is quite plain that the ones who are the most servile and obedient to the opinions and life of the crowd are the greatest enemies to change and individuality. The fact is, none of the generally accepted theories of the basis of right and wrong has ever been the foundation of law or morals. The basis that the world has always followed, and perhaps always will accept, is not hard to find.
The criminal is the one who violates habits and customs of life, the "folk-ways" of the community where he lives. These customs and folk-ways must be so important in the opinion of the community as to make their violation a serious affair. Such violation is considered evil regardless of whether the motives37 are selfish or unselfish, good or bad. The folk-ways have a certain validity and a certain right to respect, but no one who believes in change can deny that they are a hindrance38 as well as a good. Men did not arrive at moral ideas by a scientific or a religious investigation of good and bad, of right and wrong, of social or anti-social life.
Man lived before he wrote laws, and before he philosophized. He began living simply and automatically; he adopted various "taboos40" which to him were omens41 of bad luck, and certain charms, incantations and the like, which made him immune from ill-fortune.
All sorts of objects, acts and phenomena42 have been the subjects of taboo39, and just as numerous and weird43 have been the charms and amulets44 and ceremonies that saved him from the dangers that everywhere beset45 his way. The life of the primitive46 human being was a journey down a narrow path; outside were infinite dangers from which magic alone could make him safe.
All animal life automatically groups itself more or less closely into herds47. Buffaloes49, horses and wolves run in packs. Some of these groups are knit closely together like ants and bees, while the units of others move much more widely apart. But whatever the group may be, its units must conform. If the wolf gets too far from the pack it suffers or dies; it matters not whether it be to the right or the left, behind or ahead, it must stay with the pack or be lost.
Men from the earliest time arranged themselves into groups; they traveled in a certain way; they established habits and customs and ways of life. These "folk-ways" were born long before human laws and were enforced more rigidly50 than the statutes of a later age. Slowly men embodied51 their "taboos," their incantations, their habits and customs into religions and statutes. A law was only a codification52 of a habit or custom that long ago was a part of the life of a people. The legislator never really makes the law; he simply writes in the books what has already become the rule of action by force of custom or opinion, or at least what he thinks has become a law.
One class of men has always been anxious to keep step with the crowd. The way is easier and the rewards more certain. Another class has been skeptical53 and resentful of the crowd. These men have refused to follow down the beaten path; they strayed into the wilderness54 seeking new and better ways. Sometimes others have followed and a shorter path was made. Often they have perished because they left the herd48. In the sight of the organized unit and the society of the time and place, the man who kept the path did right. The man who tried to make a new path and left the herd did wrong. In its last analysis, the criminal is the one who leaves the pack. He may lag behind or go in front, he may travel to the right or to the left, he may be better or worse, but his fate is the same.
The beaten path, however formed or however unscientific, has some right to exist. On the whole it has tended to preserve life, and it is the way of least resistance for the human race. On the other hand it is not the best, and the way has ever been made easier by those who have violated precepts and defied some of the concepts of the time. Both ways are right and both ways are wrong. The conflict between the two ways is as old as the human race.
Paths and customs and institutions are forever changing. So are ideas of right and wrong, and so, too, are statutes. The law, no doubt, makes it harder for customs and habits to be changed, for it adds to the inertia55 of the existing thing.
Is there, then, nothing in the basis of right and wrong that answers to the common conception of these words? There are some customs that have been forbidden longer and which, it seems, must necessarily be longer prohibited; but the origin of all is the same. A changing world has shown how the most shocking crimes punished by the severest penalties have been taken from the calendar and no longer even bear the suspicion of wrong. Religious differences, witchcraft and sorcery have probably brought more severe punishments than any other acts; yet a change of habit and custom and belief has long since abolished all such crimes. So, too, crimes come and go with new ideals, new movements and conditions. The largest portion of our criminal code deals with the rights of property; yet nearly all of this is of comparatively modern growth. A new emotion may take possession of man which will result in the repeal of many if not all of these statutes, and place some other consideration above property, which seems to be the controlling emotion of today.
Crime, strictly speaking, is only such conduct or acts as are forbidden by the law and for which penalties are prescribed. The classification of the act does not necessarily have relation to moral conduct. This cannot be fixed56 by any exact standard. There is no straight clear line between the good and bad, the right and wrong. The general ways of determining good and bad conduct are of little value. The line between the two is always uncertain and shifting. And, in the last analysis, good or bad conduct rests upon the "folk-ways," the habits, beliefs and customs of a community. While this is the real basis of judging conduct, it is always changing, and from the nature of things, if it could be made stable, it would mean that society was stratified and all hope of improvement dead.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
sane
|
|
| adj.心智健全的，神志清醒的，明智的，稳健的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
virtuous
|
|
| adj.有品德的，善良的，贞洁的，有效力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
penal
|
|
| adj.刑罚的；刑法上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
violation
|
|
| n.违反(行为)，违背(行为)，侵犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
transgression
|
|
| n.违背；犯规；罪过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
indirectly
|
|
| adv.间接地，不直接了当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
repeal
|
|
| n.废止，撤消；v.废止，撤消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
repealing
|
|
| 撤销，废除( repeal的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
statutes
|
|
| 成文法( statute的名词复数 )； 法令； 法规； 章程 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
witchcraft
|
|
| n.魔法，巫术 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
legislative
|
|
| n.立法机构，立法权；adj.立法的，有立法权的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
judicial
|
|
| adj.司法的，法庭的，审判的，明断的，公正的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
precepts
|
|
| n.规诫，戒律，箴言( precept的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
interpretation
|
|
| n.解释，说明，描述；艺术处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
implicitly
|
|
| adv. 含蓄地, 暗中地, 毫不保留地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
killing
|
|
| n.巨额利润；突然赚大钱，发大财 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
killings
|
|
| 谋杀( killing的名词复数 )； 突然发大财，暴发 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
defense
|
|
| n.防御，保卫；[pl.]防务工事；辩护，答辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
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： |
|
|
|
|
26
uncertainty
|
|
| n.易变，靠不住，不确知，不确定的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
faculty
|
|
| n.才能；学院，系；(学院或系的)全体教学人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
faculties
|
|
| n.能力( faculty的名词复数 )；全体教职员；技巧；院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
mentality
|
|
| n.心理，思想，脑力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
intoxicating
|
|
| a. 醉人的,使人兴奋的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
temperament
|
|
| n.气质，性格，性情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
well-being
|
|
| n.安康，安乐，幸福 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
venerated
|
|
| 敬重（某人或某事物），崇敬( venerate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
lesser
|
|
| adj.次要的，较小的；adv.较小地，较少地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
contented
|
|
| adj.满意的，安心的，知足的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
hindrance
|
|
| n.妨碍，障碍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
taboo
|
|
| n.禁忌，禁止接近，禁止使用；adj.禁忌的；v.禁忌，禁制，禁止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
taboos
|
|
| 禁忌( taboo的名词复数 )； 忌讳； 戒律； 禁忌的事物（或行为） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
omens
|
|
| n.前兆，预兆( omen的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
phenomena
|
|
| n.现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
weird
|
|
| adj.古怪的，离奇的；怪诞的，神秘而可怕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
amulets
|
|
| n.护身符( amulet的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
beset
|
|
| v.镶嵌；困扰，包围 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
primitive
|
|
| adj.原始的；简单的；n.原(始)人，原始事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
herds
|
|
| 兽群( herd的名词复数 )； 牧群； 人群； 群众 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
herd
|
|
| n.兽群，牧群；vt.使集中，把…赶在一起 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
buffaloes
|
|
| n.水牛（分非洲水牛和亚洲水牛两种）( buffalo的名词复数 )；（南非或北美的）野牛；威胁；恐吓 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
rigidly
|
|
| adv.刻板地，僵化地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
embodied
|
|
| v.表现( embody的过去式和过去分词 )；象征；包括；包含 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
codification
|
|
| n.法典编纂，法律成文化；法规汇编 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
skeptical
|
|
| adj.怀疑的，多疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
wilderness
|
|
| n.杳无人烟的一片陆地、水等，荒漠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
inertia
|
|
| adj.惰性，惯性，懒惰，迟钝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |