评论
打印
The uncontrollable brute whom I want put out of the way is not to be punished for his misdeeds, nor used as an example or a warning; he is to be killed for the protection of others, like the wolf that escaped not long ago in a Connecticut suburb. No anger, vindictiveness or moral conceit need preside over the removal of such dangers. But a man's inability to control his violent impulses or to imagine the fatal consequences of his acts should be a presumptive reason for his elimination from society. This generally covers drunken driving and teen-age racing on public highways, as well as incurable obsessive violence; it might be extended (as I shall suggest later) to other acts that destroy, precisely, the moral basis of civilization.
我认为剔除无法无天的恶棍，既不是为了惩罚其罪行，也不是为了杀鸡吓猴，而是为了保护他人的安全才将其处死，就象前不久在康涅狄格州郊区杀死逃出的那只恶狼一样。靠愤怒的情绪、复仇的心理或道德观念来处决这类祸害是行不通的。如果一个人既不能控制他的暴力冲动，又不能顾及他的行动所导致的致人于死的恶果，那么就有充分理由将他从社会中淘汰。这种暴力冲动一般包括在公路上酗酒开车，青少年在公路上驾车追逐以及其他不可救药的疯狂的暴力行为，而且还可以扩大到(下文我将要提出的)一些的确毁灭人类文明道德基础的其他行为。
But why kill? I am ready to believe the statistics tending to show that the prospect of his own death does not stop the murderer. For one thing he is often a blind egotist , who cannot conceive the possibility of his own death. For another, detection would have to be infallible to deter the more imaginative who, although afraid, think they can escape discovery. Lastly, as Shaw long ago pointed out, hanging the wrong man will deter as effectively as hanging the right one. So, once again, why kill: If I agree that moral progress means an increasing respect for human life, how can I oppose abolition?
但是，为什么要把人杀掉呢?我很相信那些证明杀人犯并没有因自己可能被处死而罢手的统计数字。首先是因为杀人犯往往是一些鲁莽的极端利己主义者，想不到自己也可能被杀。其次是侦察必须完全可靠，才能对那些尽管提心吊胆但仍以为能逃出法网的狡猾的罪犯起到威慑作用。第三，正如肖伯纳早就指出过的，杀一个不该杀的人和杀一个该杀的人具有同样的威慑效果。这样，人们不禁又要问：为什么非要置人于死地不可呢?既然我认为道德上的进步就意味着越来越尊重人的生命，我又怎能反对废除死刑呢?
