| Reviewing this chapter again, I noticed that Rothbard did (parenthetically) include interest (p. 88) in reparations, which means that he didn’t completely disregard the time dimension of crimes. So I was mistaken in much of my comments yesterday. | またこの章を読みながらロスバードが（挿入句で）利子（ｐ．８８）を刑罰に含めたことに気付いた。だから犯罪の時間を完全に無視しなかった。と言うことで、拙者が昨日書いたものの一部が間違った。 |
| However, I remembered an important insight on the topic that had earlier slipped my mind. | だが、この話題について今まで忘れていた大事な洞察を思い出した。 |
| A temporary crime deserves a temporary punishment. | 一時的な犯罪には一時的な刑罰が適当でござる。 |
| This is only fitting, if the criminal should forfeit his rights to the extent that he violated others’ rights. So, theft can be punished (after the goods are recovered) with a temporary loss of the same value and duration, as near as can be assessed. Alternatively, since temporary possession has a price (rent, or interest for money), courts may sentence the criminal to restitution of the original goods plus rent/interest, instead of setting up a schedule for a new temporary transfer of property. This is the reason that my opinion is that principal-plus-interest proportionality will obtain in the free society. | 犯罪者が他人の権利を破った程自分の権利を失うならばそれだけが適当でござる。盗みの場合では盗んだ所有品を返した後同等な品を同期に没収されることで刑罰される。代わりとして、一時的な所有には値段があるから細かいことを避けて法廷が所有品の賠償と借り賃で刑罰できる。これは元金と利子の比例が広まる理由になると思う。 |
| On the other hand, for permanent crimes, such as a lost tooth, my assessment doesn’t differ from Rothbard’s, aside from favoring single-proportionality. | その一方、歯を無くすような永久な犯罪について一重比例以外ではロスバードと意見が異ならない。 |
Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 13, Revisited
Bookmark the permalink.