高级英语第二册听力 13.In Favor of Capital Punishment

 

　　13.In Favor of Capital Punishment
　　Jacques Barzun
　　1 A passing remark of mine in the Mid-Century magazine has brought me a number of letters and a sheaf of pamphlets against capital punishment. The letters, sad and reproachful, offer me the choice of pleading ignorance or being proved insensitive. I am asked whether I know that there exists a worldwide movement for the abolition of capital punishment which has everywhere enlisted able men of every profession, including the law. I am told that the death penalty is not only inhuman but also unscientific, for rapists and murderers are really sick people who should be cured, not killed. I am invited to use my imagination and acknowledge the unbearable horror of every form of execution.
　　2 I am indeed aware that the movement for abolition is widespread and articulate, especially in England. It is headed there by my old friend and publisher, Mr. Victor Gollancz, and it numbers such well-known writers as Arthur Koestler, C.H.Rolph, James Avery Joyce and Sir John Barry. Abroad as at home the profession of psychiatry tends to support the cure principle, and many liberal newspapers, such as the Observer, are committed to abolition. In the United States there are at least twenty-five state leagues working to the same end, plus a national league and several church councils, notably the Quaker and the Episcopal.
　　3 The assemblage of so much talent and enlightened goodwill behind a single proposal must give pause to anyone who supports the other side, and in the attempt to make clear my views, which are now close to unpopular, I start out by granting that my conclusion is arguable; that is, I am still open to conviction, provided some fallacies and frivolities in the abolitionist argument are first disposed of and the difficulties not ignored but overcome. I should be glad to see this happen, not only because there is pleasure in the spectacle of an airtight case, but also because I am not more sanguinary than my neighbor and I should welcome the discovery of safeguards – for society and the criminal – other than killing. But I say it again, these safeguards must really meet, not evade or postpone, the difficulties I am about to describe. Let me add before I begin that I shall probably not answer any more letters on this arousing subject. If this printed exposition does not do justice to my cause, it is not likely that I can do better in the hurry of private correspondence.
　　4 I readily concede at the outset that present ways of dealing out capital punishment are as revolting as Mr. Koestler says in his harrowingvolume, Hanged by the Neck. Like many of our prisons, our modes of execution should change. But this objection to barbarity does not mean that capital punishment – or rather, judicial homicide – should not go on. The illicit jump we find here, on the threshold of the inquiry, is characteristic of the abolitionist and must be disallowed at every point. Let us bear in mind the possibility of devising a painless, sudden and dignified death and see whether its administration is justifiable.
　　5 The four main arguments advanced against the death penalty are: 1) Punishment for crime is a primitive idea rooted in revenge; 2) capital punishment does not deter; 3) judicial error being possible, taking life is an appalling risk; 4) a civilized state, to deserve its name, must uphold, not violate, the sanctity of human life.
　　6 I entirely agree with the first pair of propositions, which is why, a moment ago, I replaced the term capital punishment with “judicial homicide.” 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.
　　7 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?
　　8 I do so because on this subject of human life, which is to me the heart of the controversy, I find the abolitionist inconsistent, narrow or blind. The propaganda for abolition speaks in hushed tones of the sanctity of human life, as if the mere statement of it as an absolute should silence all opponents who have any moral sense. But most of the abolitionists belong to nations that spend half their annual income on weapons of war and that honor research to perfect means of killing. These good people vote without a qualm for the political parties that quite sensibly arm their country to the teeth. The west today does not seem to be the time or place to invoke the absolute sanctity of human life. As for the clergymen in the movement, we may be sure from the experience of two previous world wars that they will bless our arms and pray for victory when called upon, the sixth commandment notwithstanding.
　　9 “Oh, but we mean the sanctity of life within the nation!” Very well: is the movement then campaigning also against the principle of self-defense? Absolute sanctity means letting the cutthroat have his sweet will of you, even if you have a poker handy to bash him with, for you might kill. And again, do we hear any protest against the police firing at criminals on the street – mere bank robbers usually – and doing this, often enough, with an excited marksmanship that misses the artist and hits the bystander? The absolute sanctity of human life is, for the abolitionist, a slogan rather than a considered proposition.
　　10 Yet it deserves examination, for upon our acceptance or rejection of it depend such other highly civilized possibilities as euthanasia and seemly suicide. The inquiring mind also wants to know, why the sanctity of human life alone? My tastes do not run to household pets, but I find something less than admirable in the uses to which we put animals – in zoos, laboratories and space machines – without the excuse of the ancient law, “ Eat or be eaten.”
　　11 It should moreover be borne in mind that this argument about sanctity applies – or would apply – to about ten persons a year in Great Britain and to between fifty and seventy-five in the United States. These are the average numbers of those executed in recent years. The count by itself should not, of course, affect our judgment of the principle: one life spared or forfeited is as important, morally, as a hundred thousand, But it should inspire a comparative judgment: there are hundreds and indeed thousands whom, in our concern with the horrors of execution, we forget: on the one hand, the victims of violence; on the other, the prisoners in our jails.
　　12 The victims are easy to forget. Social science tends steadily to mark a preference for the troubled, the abnormal, the problem case. Whether it is poverty, mental disorder, delinquency or crime, the “ patient material” monopolizes the interest of increasing groups of people among the most generous and learned. Psychiatry and moral liberalism go together; the application of law as we have known it is thus coming to be regarded as an historic prelude to social work, which may replace it entirely. Modern literature makes the most of this same outlook, caring only for the disturbed spirit, scorning as bourgeois those who pay their way and do not stab their friends. All the while the determinism of natural science reinforces the assumption that society causes its own evils. A French jurist, for example, says that in order to understand crime we must first brush aside all ideas of Responsibility. He means the criminal’s and takes for granted that of society. The murderer kills because reared in a broken home or, conversely, because at an early age he witnessed his parents making love. Out of such cases, which make pathetic reading in the literature of modern criminology, is born the abolitionist’s state of mind: we dare not kill those we are beginning to understand so well.
　　13 If, moreover, we turn to the accounts of the crimes committed by these unfortunates, who are the victims? Only dull ordinary people going about their business. We are sorry, of course, but they do not interest science on its march. Balancing, for example, the sixty to seventy criminals executed annually in the United States, there were the seventy to eighty housewives whom George Cvek robbed, raped and usually killed during the months of a career devoted to proving his virility. “it is too bad.” Cvek alone seems instructive, even though one of the law officers who helped track him down quietly remarks: “As to the extent that his villainies disturbed family relationships, or how many women are still haunted to another living soul, these questions can only lend themselves to sterile 　 conjecture.”
　　14 The remote results are beyond our ken, but it is not idle to speculate about those whose death by violence fills the daily two inches at the back of respectable newspapers – the old man sunning himself on a park bench and beaten to death by four hoodlums , the small children abused and strangled , the family terrorized by a released or escaped lunatic, the half- dozen working people massacredby the sudden maniac , the boatload of persons dispatched (v.) by the skipper, the mindless assaults upon schoolteachers and shopkeepers by the increasing horde of dedicated killers in our great cities. Where does the sanctity of life begin?
　　15 It is all very well to say that many of these killers are themselves “children,” that is, minors. Doubtless a nine-year-old mind is housed in that 150 pounds of unguided muscle. Grant, for argument’s sake, that the misdeed is “the fault of society,” trot out the broken home and the slum environment. The question then is, what shall we do, not in the Utopian city of tomorrow, but here and now? The “scientific” means of cure are more than uncertain. The apparatus of detention only increases the killer’s antisocial animus . Reformatories and mental hospitals are full and have an understandable bias toward discharging their inmates. Some of these are indeed “cured” – so long as they stay under a rule. The stress of the social free-for-all throws them back on their violent modes of self-expression. At that point I agree that society has failed – twice: it has twice failed the victims, whatever may be its guilt toward the killer.
　　16 As in all great questions, the moralist must choose, and choosing has a price. I happen to think that is a person of adult body has not been endowed with adequate controls against irrationally taking the life of another, that person must be judicially, painlessly, regretfully killed before that mindless body’s horrible automation repeats.
　　17 I say “irrationally” taking life, because it is often possible to feel great sympathy with a murderer. Certain crimes passionnels can be forgiven without being condoned. Blackmailers invite direct retribution. Long provocation can be an excuse, as in that engaging case of some years ago, in which a respectable carpenter of seventy found he could no longer stand the incessant nagging of his wife. While she excoriatedhim from her throne in the kitchen- a daily exercise for fifty years— the husband went to his bench and came back with a hammer in each hand to settle the score. The testimony to his character, coupled with the sincerity implied by the two hammers, was enough to have him sent into quiet and brief seclusion .
　　18 But what are we to say of the type of motive disclosed in a journal published by the inmates of one of our Federal penitentiaries ? The author is a bank robber who confesses that money is not his object: My mania for power, socially, sexually, and otherwise can feel no degree of satisfaction until I feel sure I have struck the ultimate of submission and terror in the minds and bodies of my victims … It’s very difficult to explain all the queer fascinating sensations pounding and surging through me while I’m holding a gun on a victim, watching his body tremble and sweat … This is the moment when all the rationalized hypocrisies of civilization are suddenly swept away and two men stand there facing each other morally and ethically naked, and right and wrong are the absolute commands of the man behind the gun.
　　19 This confused echo of modern literature and modern science defines the choice before us. Anything deserving the name of cure for such a man presupposes not only a laborious individual psychoanalysis , with the means to conduct and to sustain it, socially and economically, but also a re-education of the mind, so as to throw into correct perspective the garbled ideas of Freud and Neitzsche, Gide and Dostoevski, which this power-seeker and his fellows have derived from the culture and temper of our times. Ideas are tenacious and give continuity to emotion. Failing a second birth of heart and mind, we must ask: How soon will this sufferer sacrifice a bank clerk in the interests of making civilization less hypocritical ? And we must certainly question the wisdom of affording him more than one chance. The abolitionists’ advocacy of an unconditional “let live” is in truth part of the same cultural tendency that animates the killer. The Western peoples’ revulsionfrom power in domestic and foreign policy has made of the state a sort of counterpart of the bank robber: both having power and neither knowing how to use it. Both waste lives because hypnotized by irrelevant ideas and crippled by contradictory emotions. If psychiatry were sure of its ground in diagnosing the individual case, a philosopher might consider whether such dangerous obsessions should not be guarded against by judicial homicide before the shooting starts.
　　20 I raise the question not indeed to recommend the prophylactic execution of potential murderers, but to introduce the last two perplexities that the abolitionists dwarf or obscure by their concentration on changing an isolated penalty. One of these is the scale by which to judge the offenses society wants to repress. I can for example imagine a truly democratic state in which it would be deemed a form of treason punishable by death to create a disturbance in any court or deliberative assembly. The aim would be to recognize the sanctity of orderly discourse in arriving at justice, assessing criticism and defining policy. Under such a law, a natural selection would operate to remove permanently from the scene persons who, let us say, neglect argument in favor of banging on the desk with their shoe. Similarly, a bullying minority in a diet, parliament or skupshtina would be prosecuted for treason to the most sacred institutions when fists or flying inkwells replace rhetoric. That the mere suggestion of such a law sounds ludicrous shows how remote we are from civilized institutions, and hence how gradual should be our departure from the severity of judicial homicide.
　　21 I say gradual and I do not mean standing still. For there is one form of barbarity in our law that I want to see mitigated before any other. I mean imprisonment. The enemies of capital punishment – and liberals generally – seem to be satisfied with any legal outcome so long as they themselves avoid the vicarious guilt of shedding blood. They speak of the sanctity of life, but have no concern with its quality. They give no impression of ever having read what it is certain they have read, from Wilde’s De Profundis to the latest account of prison life by a convicted homosexual. Despite the infamy of concentration camps, despite Mr. Charles Burney’s remarkable work, Solitary Confinement, despite riots in prisons, despite the round of escape, recapture and return in chains, the abolitionists’ imagination tells them nothing about the reality of being caged. They read without a qualm, indeed they read with rejoicing, the hideous irony of “Killer Gets Life”; they sign with relief instead of horror. They do not see and suffer the cell, the drill, the clothes, the stench , the food; they do not feel the sexual racking of young and old bodies, the hateful promiscuity , the insane monotony, the mass degradation, the impotent hatred. They do not remember from Silvio Pellico that only a strong political faith, with a hope of final victory, can steel a man to endure a long detention. They forget that Joan of Arc, when offered “life”, preferred burning at the stake. Quite of another mind, the abolitionists point with pride to the “model prisoners” that murderers often turn out to be. As if a model prisoner were not, first, a contradiction in terms, and second, an exemplarof what a free society should not want.
　　22 I said a moment ago that the happy advocates of the life sentence appear not to have understood what we know they have read. No more do they appear to read what they themselves write. In the preface to his useful volume of cases, Hanged in Error, Mr. Leslie Hale, M.P., refers to the tardy recognition of a minor miscarriage of justice – one year in jail: “The prisoner emerged to find that his wife had died and that his children and his aged parents had been removed to the workhouse. By the time a small payment had been assessed as ‘compensation’ the victim was incurably insane.” So far we are as indignant with the law as Mr. Hale. But what comes next? He cites the famous Evans case, in which it is very probable that the wrong man was hanged, and he exclaims: “While such mistakes are possible, should society impose an irrevocable sentence?” Does Mr. Hale really ask us to believe that the sentence passed on the first man, whose wife died and who went insane, was in any sense revocable? Would not any man rather be Evans dead than that other wretch “emerging” with his small compensation and his reasons for living gone?
　　23 Nothing is revocable here below, imprisonment least of all. The agony of a trial itself is punishment, and acquittalwipes out nothing. Read the heart-rending diary of William Wallace, accused quite implausibly of having murdered his wife and “saved” by the Court of Criminal Appeals – but saved for what ? Brutish ostracism by everyone and a few years of solitary despair. The cases of Adolf Beck, of Oscar Slater, of the unhappy Brooklyn bank teller who vaguely resembled a forger and spent eight years in Sing Sing only to “emerge” a broken, friendless, useless, “compensated” man – all these, if the dignity of the individual has any meaning, had better have been dead before the prison door ever opened for them. This is what counsel always says to the jury in the course of a murder trial and counsel is right: far better hang this man than “give him life.” For my part, I would choose death without hesitation. If that option is abolished, a demand will one day be heard to claim it as a privilege in the name of human dignity. I shall believe in the abolitionist’s present views only after he has emerged from twelve months in a convict cell.
　　24 The detached observer may want to interrupt here and say that the argument has now passed from reasoning to emotional preference. Whereas the objector to capital punishment feels that death is the greatest of evils, I feel that imprisonment is worse than death. A moment’s thought will show that feeling is the appropriate arbiter . All reasoning about what is right, civilized and moral rests upon sentiment, like mathematics. Only, in trying to persuade others, it is important to single out the fundamental feeling, the prime intuition, and from it to reason justly. In my view, to profess respect for human life and be willing to see it spent in a penitentiary is to entertain liberal feelings frivolously. To oppose the death penalty because, unlike a prison term, it is irrevocable is to argue fallaciously.
　　25 In the propaganda for abolishing the death sentence the recital of numerous miscarriages of justice commits the same error and implies the same callousness : What is at fault in our present system is not the sentence but the fallible procedure. Capital cases being one in a thousand or more, who can be cheerful at the thought of all the “revocable” errors? What the miscarriages point to is the need for reforming the jury system, the rules of evidence, the customs of prosecution, the machinery of appeal. The failure to see that this is the great task reflects the sentimentality I spoke of earlier, that which responds chiefly to the excitement of the unusual. A writer on Death and the Supreme Court is at pains to point but that when that tribunal reviews a capital case, the judges are particularly anxious and careful. What a left-handed complimentto the highest judicial conscience of the country! Fortunately, some of the champions of the misjudged see the issue more clearly. Many of those who are thought wrongly convicted now languish in jail because the jury was uncertain or because a doubting governor commuted the death sentence. Thus Dr. Samuel H. Sheppard, Jr., convicted of his wife’s murder in the second degree is serving a sentence that is supposed to run for the term of his natural life. The story of his numerous trials, as told by Mr. Paul Holmes, suggests that police incompetence, newspaper demagogy, public envy of affluence and the mischances of legal procedure fashioned the result. But Dr. Sheppard’s vindicator is under no illusion as to the conditions that this “lucky” evader of the electric chair will face if he is granted parole after ten years: “It will carry with it no right to resume his life as a physician. His privilege to practice medicine was blotted out with his conviction. He must all his life bear the stigma of parolee, subject to unceremonious return to confinement for life for the slightest misstep. More than this, he must live out his life as a convicted murderer.
　　26 What does the moral conscience of today think it is doing? If such a man is a dangerous repeater of violent acts? What right has the state to let him loose after ten years? What is, in fact, the meaning of a “life sentence” that peters out long before life? Paroling looks suspiciously like an expression of social remores for the pain of incarceration , coupled with a wish to avoid “unfavorable publicity” by freeing a suspect. The man is let out when the fuss has died down; which would mean that he was not under lock and key for our protection at all. He was being punished, just a little –for so prison seems in the abolitionist’s distorted view, and in the jury’s and the prosecutor’s whose “second-degree” murder suggests killing someone “just a little,”
　　27 If, on the other hand, execution and life imprisonment are judged too severe and the accused is expected to be harmless hereafter- punishment being ruled out as illiberal- what has society gained by wrecking his life and damaging that of his family?
　　28 What we accept, and what the abolitionist will clamp upon us all the more firmly if he succeeds, is an incoherence which is not remedied by the belief that second-degree murder merits a kind of second degree death; that a doubt as to the identity of a killer is resolved by commuting real death into intolerable life; and that our ignorance whether a maniac will strike again can be hedged against by measuring “good behavior” within the gates and then releasing the subject upon the public in the true spirit of experimentation.
　　29 There are some of thoughts I find I cannot escape when I read and reflect upon this grave subject. If, as I think, they are relevant to any discussion of change and reform, retain as they do on the direct and concrete perception of what happens, then the simple meliorists who expect to breathe a purer air by abolishing the death penalty are deceiving themselves and us. The issue is for the public to judge; but I for one shall not sleep easer for knowing that in England and American and the West generally a hundred more human beings are kept alive in degrading conditions to face a hopeless future; while others- possibly less conscious, certainly less controlled- benefit from a premature freedom dangerous alike to themselves and society. In short, I derive no comfort from the illusion that in giving up one manifest protection of the law-abiding, we who might well be in and of these three roles- victim, prisoner, licensed killer- have struck a blow for the sanctity of human life.
　　(from an American radio program presented by Ed Kay)

　　第十三课为死刑辩护
　　雅克巴赞
　　《中世纪》杂志上刊载了我随便讲的一番话后，许多反对死刑的信件和小册子向我飞来。这些信件，有的是对我的观点表示遗憾，有的是对我的观点给予斥责。他们要我承认自己不是愚昧无知就是麻木不仁，责问我是否知道面临着一场世界性的废除死刑的运动，而且这场运动已经得到了包括法学家在内的各界有识之士的广泛支持；他们说将人处死既无人道又违背科学。因为无论是强奸犯还是杀人犯，其实都是病人，对他们应当给予医治而不应该处死。他们要我认真地思考并认识到将人处死的任何形式所引起的恐惧都是不堪容忍的。
　　的确，这场废除死刑的运动已遍及世界，而且已宣传得深入人心，尤其在英国更是如此。这场运动的领导者就是我的老友兼出版商维克托·高兰兹先生，还有阿瑟·凯斯特勒、CH罗尔夫、詹姆斯·艾弗里·乔伊斯、约翰·巴里爵士等一批享有盛名的作家。国内外精神病学界的人士都倾向于采取治病救人的方针，而且许多自由派报纸，譬如《观察家报》就极力地主张彻底废除死刑。在美国，至少有25个州级协会、一家全国性协会以及一系列教派在为此目的而努力，其中最引人注意的是教友派和主教派。
　　如此之多的英才贤士群起支持一项善意的提议，当然会使任何敌对的一方望而却步。为了阐明我的观点(尽管我的观点目前几乎不得人心)，我得申明我的结论是可以争辩的，也就是说，我仍愿意服从真理，但条件是首先必须澄清废除派论点中的某些谬误和强词夺理之言；这些问题必须解决，而不能置之不理。若能做到这些，我当然非常高兴。这不仅是因为看到无懈可击的事实乃一件乐事，而且是因为我并不比别人更好杀戳；我很希望能看到有既能维护社会又能保护罪犯(而不是将罪犯处死)的好办法，但我要重申，这些办法必须能切实解决我将要谈到的一些问题，而不能对此回避或拖延。在开始之前我还要补充说明一句：我或许再不会答复有关这个使人们反应强烈的问题的任何来信。如果这篇公开发表的文章还不能证明我的论点的话，那么，匆匆往复的私人信函也不可能起什么作用。
　　首先我愿意承认，置人于死的现有方式是令人震惊的，就象凯斯特勒先生在《绞刑》一书中所描写的那样惨不忍睹。与我国许多监狱的情况一样，我们的行刑方式也应当改变。但是，反对野蛮并不意味着死刑--确切地说是按法律处死--应该废除。在开始探究这一问题时，我们就发现这种一下子就得出荒谬结论的做法是废除派的一个特征。这种做法必须全面予以禁止。我们应该记住，有可能设计一种无痛苦、迅速而又威严的处死方式，并检验一下对这种方式的执行是否合理得当。
　　提出反对死刑的四个主要论点是：(1)对犯罪的惩罚是在基于报复的一种原始观念；(2)死刑并不起威慑作用；(3)审判上的失误可能导致滥杀无辜之危险；(4)文明国家应名符其实，对神圣不可侵犯的人生只能是维护而不容许亵渎。
　　我完全赞同前两个论点，这就是为什么刚才我用"按法律处死"来代替"死刑"这个字眼的缘故。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。
　　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?
　　我之所以反对废除死刑是因为我认为争论的核心问题就是有关人的生命的问题，我觉得废除派的论点是矛盾的、狭隘的，是不堪一击的。废除派用一种温文尔雅的口吻宣传着所谓人生的神圣，好像只要把它说成是一种绝对的东西就能使一切还有点道德意识的反对者缄默不语。可是大多数的废除派都是那些把年收入的一半用于制造战争武器以及以研究完备的杀人手段为荣的一些国家。对于那些十分明显地将国家武装到牙齿的一些政党，一些善良的人们竞也毫不犹豫地赞成。在今日西方，祈祷人的生命绝对神圣不可侵犯似乎既非其时，亦非其地。至于这场运动中的教士，根据过去两次世界大战的经验我们可以确信，一经召唤，他们便会为军队祝福，为胜利祈祷，管他什么第六条圣诫。
　　"哦，我们意指的生命不可侵犯是就国内而言的。"好极了，那么你们这场运动还要反对自卫的原则吗?所谓人的生命绝对不可侵犯，就是听任杀手对你为所欲为，你即使手边有个火钳也不可用来还击，因为这样你可就是杀人。再者，我们何曾听说过这样的抗议：警察在街头向罪犯--通常不过是一些抢劫银行的匪徒--开火时，一些子弹击中行路人，而不是那神通广大的匪徒。废除派所谓人的生命神圣不可侵犯，并不是什么深思熟虑后的主张，只不过是一个口号而已。
　　人的生命神圣不可侵犯之说是值得研究的。因为另外一些诸如无痛苦致死术和适当的自杀之类的极文明的办法也决定于我们对这种观念是否接受。追根寻底的人还想知道：为什么反复讲人生不可侵犯呢?我对家庭玩赏动物则毫无兴趣，同时我认为把动物置于动物园、实验室及空间仪器中的做法也并不值得赞美，除非以"要么吞食，要么被吞食"的古老法则作为借口。
　　而且应该知道，关于神圣不可侵犯之说的这场论争在英国每年只适用于或可能适用于10个人左右，在美国每年也只适用于50-70人而已，这就是近年来被处死者的平均数字。当然这个数字本身不应该影响我们对这一原则的裁决。因为在道义上来讲，对一个人的生杀予夺与对千百万人的生杀予夺是同等重要的。但是我们应从这个数字中得出一个比较性判断：在我们考虑死刑造成的恐怖时，我们却忘记了成千上万的其他人，但我们一方面忽视了那些暴力行为的受害者，另一方面也忽视了监狱里的那些囚犯。
　　受害者往往容易被忽视。社会科学总是对那些被认为是罪犯精神有毛病、不正常或有问题的案件给予优先考虑，无论是贫困，是精神失常，是过失，还是罪恶，这种"病情资料"始终是一批批越来越多的最宽宏大量和最有学问的人的兴趣所在。精神病学和道德自由主义密切配合，于是我们所熟悉的执法问题开始被视为社会工作的一种历史序曲，而社会工作终究会将它完全取而代之。现代文学作品也充分地表明了这种观点。这些作品只关心所谓精神上的混乱，而把那些从不贪占他人钱财、不捅朋友一刀的人斥之为中产阶级。自然科学的决定论始终强调犯罪行为是由社会本身造成的说法。例如，一位法国法律学家说：为了了解犯罪，我们必须首先去掉一切责任观念。他所指的是要免除罪犯的责任，而把责任推向社会；杀人犯之所以杀人，是因为他成长于一个破裂的家庭，或反之，是因为他正当小小年纪便目睹了父母的性行为。那些在现代犯罪文学作品中令人产生恻隐之心的案件，造成了废除派这样一种心理：我们可不能将那些正在开始为我们真正理解的人杀掉。
　　此外，如果我们看看这些不幸者的犯罪记录，就会知道谁是受害者…还不是那些忙于事务，反应迟钝的普通人吗?当然我是为他们感到难过的。但遗憾的是。他们并不能引起日益发展的科学的研究兴趣。比较一下：在美国一年有六七十名罪犯被处死，仅乔治·科威克一人为了显示自己的男子气概，在几个月内就抢劫和强奸了七八十名妇女，并常常将她们杀死。"这太残忍了!""至于他所犯下的罪行破坏了多少人的家庭关系、有多少妇女对那从未向别人透露的遭遇仍旧心有余悸，以及诸如此类的问题，就只能付诸毫无结果的推测了。"即使一位协助追捕科威克的司法官这样温和地评论着，但似乎只有科威克才能对人有所启发。 这些犯罪行为所造成的恶果远远超过了我们所能知道的范围。有时间，推究一下每天各大报末版所刊登的因暴力致死的人们的情况是值得的：一位在公园长椅上晒太阳的老人被四个恶棍活活打死，几个小孩受欺负后被勒死，几个路上行走的中年妇女被强奸后又被杀死，一家老小被放出或逃出的精神病人骚扰得不能安宁，六七个正在于活的人被突如其来的杀人狂屠戳殆尽，整船的船员被船长全部杀死，一些大城市里的教师和店员遭到了越来越多的杀人惯犯的疯狂袭击。在这种情况之下，所谓人生的神圣又何从谈起呢?
　　诚然，这些杀人犯中不少是没有达到法定年龄的"孩子"。无疑，这些人头脑简单，身躯庞大，有一身无法自控的力气。为辩论起见，我们姑且承认这些犯罪行为是"社会的过错"，提出家庭破裂和贫困环境所迫之理由。那么问题在于，不是在未来的"乌托邦"城市里，而是此时此地我们该怎么办。所谓"科学的"医治手段是很不可靠的，拘留机构和设施只能助长杀人犯反社会的气焰。教养院和精神病院均已满员，所以它们想让它们的"住客"离开的原因是可以理解的。这些住客中有些人是真正"治愈"了--因为对他们加强了管制。如果强调社会可以自由行事，就会使他们旧恶复发，照旧用暴力来表现自己。这样，我可以说社会又一次失败了，它至少又一次对不起受害者，不管它对杀人者应负什么责任。
　　对于一切重大问题，德育家必须作出抉择，而且这抉择需要付出代价。我恰恰认为，如果一个成年人对自己没有适当的控制力，而是毫无理性地毁夺他人的生命，那么对这个没有理智的人，在他重复其机械性的恐怖行动之前，就必须通过法律迫不得已地将他无痛苦地处死。 我之所以说"毫无理性地"毁夺人命，是因为杀人犯往往可能得到一些人的怜悯，某些激怒之下的犯罪行为虽然不会免于追究，但可能得到宽大处理。敲诈者会受到直接的惩罚。长期的挑衅可以作为杀人的借口，就像几年前一桩引人注目的案件中，一个70多岁、受人尊重的木匠对其妻子无休止的唠叨忍无可忍时那样。妻子坐在厨房的宝座上责骂他--50年来每天都是这样--丈夫走到他的工作台前，双手各拿一把锤子回来跟她算帐。对木匠的证词以及从两把锤子中所得出的他的忠诚足以将他送入安静的隔离室少住些时日。
　　然而，对于我们联邦的某所监狱所出版的一家刊物的一篇文章所披露的另一种犯罪动机，我们又该说些什么呢?那篇文章的作者是一个银行抢劫犯，他在供词中声称抢钱并不是他的真正目的：
　　"我对于社会地位、性生活及其他事物的追求达到了狂热的程度，我觉得只有当我能使我的受害者的身心都因极度的恐惧而完全被征服时，我的这些欲望才能得到满足。……不知为什么，每当我拿着枪对准别人，看到她浑身发抖、面上冷汗直冒的样子时，我总会感到自己身上洋溢着一种说不出的痛快。……因为在这样的时刻，文明社会的种种虚饰倾刻间荡然无存，只有两个人面对面站在那里，道德上的伪装全被撕去，是非曲直完全取决于持枪者的裁判。"
　　这种现代文学和现代科学混乱不清的反响决定了我们面临的选择。要真正算得上是治愈了这样一个人，必须有这样的先决条件：社会上和经济上有能力进行和坚持长期艰苦的个人精神分析，并对其思想进行重新教育。这种教育是为了使这个权力追求者及类似的人对从我们时代的文化和特征中得来的、被歪曲了的弗洛伊德和尼采、吉德和陀思妥耶夫斯基的思想有一个正确的看法。思想是很顽强的，并使感情得以延续。如果心理上和思想上没有一次再生，我们就要问：还要多久，这个患者就会为了使文明不那么虚伪而又牺牲一个银行职员?我们当然要对再给他一次机会是否明智提出疑问。主张废除死刑者宣传的无条件的"让别人活"，实际上是激励杀人者的那种文化倾向的一个部分。西方人民在国内和外交政策上对权力的厌恶，已使国家成为银行抢劫犯的某种相对称的东西。二者都有权，又都不知如何使用。二者糟踏生命都在于对混杂的思想着了迷和陷于矛盾的感情而不能自拔。如果精神病学家在诊断这种病例时，对自己的诊断确有把握，那么哲学家也许应考虑一下，为了防止这种危险的着迷，是否应在枪杀开始前，就由法院将此人处死。
　　我提出这样一个问题的用意决不是主张要对那些可能成为杀人犯的人还在他们没有机会作案之前就预先实行处决。我的目的只是要由此引出最后两个复杂的问题。这两个复杂问题曾由于废除派一心只想到要改变孤立的惩罚方式而被忽略或混淆了。其一是社会所需的对应予以惩罚的犯法行为的量刑标准。比方说，我就可以想象有这样一个真正的民主国家，在这个国家里任何在法庭或审议会上滋事捣乱的行为都会被定为叛逆罪，处以死刑。制订了这种法律的目的是为了使人们意识到会议秩序的神圣性。在裁定是非、评估得失及解释政策的过程中必须保证辩论有秩序地进行。有了这样的法律，那些不是尽力以理服人而是动辄就脱鞋子拍桌子的人就会被自然淘汰掉，永远没有机会再占席位了。同样，在国会、议会或其他最高立法机关中若出现少数以拳代口、认力不认理的强横不法分子的话，他们也会因叛逆罪而被起诉。只要一提出这样的法律就会使人们觉得荒唐可笑。这种情形恰好说明，我们的社会距离真正的文明还很遥远，因此，也就只能朝着摆脱严刑峻法的目标逐步前进。
　　我说的逐步前进并不意味着停步不前。我认为在目前的刑罚方式中确实有一种是极其残酷的，必须优先予以缓解。我这里提的是监禁。那些反对实行死刑的人--他们多半为自由主义鼓吹者--似乎以为只要他们能逃避流血的罪责，任何其他法律上的后果都尽可不计。他们只顾痴谈人的生命的神圣性，根本不管那究竟是一种什么样的生命。从王尔德的《惨痛的呼声》到最近由一个同性恋者所作的对狱中生活的描述，他们似乎都没有读过，尽管事实上他们也可能都读过。尽管集中营的声名已人人皆知，尽管有查尔斯·伯尔尼先生写的《单独监禁》这样一部影响突出的大作，尽管我们知道监狱中常常发生犯人暴动、越狱逃跑、再度被捕并重新入狱这样的事实，废除派却丝毫想象不出被关在牢笼里究竟是个什么样的滋味。对于报刊上出现的"杀人犯免受死刑"这种触目惊心的特具讽刺意味的语句，他们读来不仅毫无不安的感觉，反而为之欢呼雀跃；不仅不感到恐怖，反而会如释重负般地长吁一口气。对于牢房中的囚室、整训、囚服、臭气以及饭食究竟是个什么样子，他们没有亲眼看到，更没有亲身体验过；对于老少囚犯因长期缺乏性生活而受到痛苦折磨，对于发生在监狱里的令人憎恶的乱交行为，对于单调的引人发疯的狱中生活，对于监狱中存在的群体堕落行为和无力发泄的仇恨心理等等，他们都毫无感觉。他们不记得西尔维奥·佩利科曾经说过的话：只有坚强的政治信仰和对最后胜利的美好希望才能使人的意志坚强得足以忍受长期的监禁。他们也忘记了当圣女贞德被给予"求生"的选择时，她宁愿烧死在火刑柱上。废除派的想法也不知怎么的会那样与众不同。他们竟然会骄傲地称赞那些杀人犯往往都可以变成的"模范囚犯"。似乎这既不是一种用词上的矛盾，也不是自由社会里不该出现的一种典型。
　　我刚才说过，那些热衷于提倡终身监禁的人们似乎未能领会我们相信他们读过的东西。甚至连他们自己所写的东西他们似乎也未认真读过。身为英国议会议员的莱斯利·黑尔先生在他的那部案例集《误杀》的前言中曾提到过一件为有关方面承认的轻微的误判--一年的监禁："该犯出狱时，发现自己妻子已经作古，几个儿女及年迈的双亲都被送到了济贫院，及至一小笔"补偿金"发到手时，这位遭误判的可怜人已经神智失常，无可挽救了。"在这一点上，我们完全同意黑尔先生的看法，同他一样对法律感到愤慨。但接下来他就举出了著名的伊文思案件，在这一案中很可能杀错了人，于是他惊呼："既然会发生这种错判，难道社会还应当强制推行无可挽回的刑罚吗?"难道黑尔先生真的要我们相信对其妻子身死、本人被逼疯的那个人作出判决在任何意义上是可以挽回的吗?难道人们不是宁愿像伊文思那样一死了之而不愿自己成为那位拿着一点补偿金"出狱"，但却完全失去继续生活愿望的不幸者吗?
　　下面提到的所有案例都是无法挽回的，尤以监禁为最。受审的折磨本身就是一种惩罚，即使审讯后无罪释放也丝毫不能抵消受害者所受的痛苦。请读一读威廉·瓦雷斯那令人肠断的日记吧。说来令人难以置信，他曾被控谋杀了自己妻子，后来经刑事案件上诉法庭才"得救"--但得救了又怎样呢?还不是遭受众人冷眼，在孤独绝望中苟活几年而已!阿道夫贝克案件、奥斯卡斯莱特案件，还有涉及那位以莫须有罪名被当成伪造犯，在星星监狱中呆了八年，出狱后变成一个身体伤残、无亲无故、领到"补偿"的废人的布鲁克林银行出纳员的案件--如果说个人的尊严还有什么意义的话，所有这些案件中的受害人还不如在入狱之前就一死了之。在法庭审讯杀人犯时，辩护律师往往会对陪审团这样说：与其这样"饶他一死"，还不如干脆赐他一死。这话的确不错。假如是我的话，我会毫不犹豫地选择去死而不愿去坐牢。倘若这种选择权被废除的话，终有一天会有人以人的尊严的名义来要求享有这种特权。要我相信废除派目前的观点，除非等到他们自己能有机会在囚室里呆上一年出狱之后。
　　持公正态度的旁人可能会在这儿打断我的话，指出我的论点已由说理变成感情用事了。反对死刑的人认为死是最大的罪孽，而我则觉得坐牢比死更可怕。只要稍稍动点脑筋想一想，我们就会意识到，感情正是最合适的仲裁者。一切关于对与错、文明与野蛮、是与非的说理、推论都是以感情为基础的，就像数学一样。不过，在试图说服别人时，重要的是应该拣选出最本质的感情，最重要的直觉，由此进行公平合理的推论。依我看来，一个人既主张尊重人的生命又愿意容许人的生命被消耗在牢狱中，那简直是在轻率地玩弄自由主义感情。如果反对死刑是因为它有异于一般的监禁，是不可挽回的，这纯属一种荒唐的推理。
　　废除派在宣传废除死刑的主张时列举了大量错判案件。他们列举这些案件时犯了判案时同样的错误，并表现出同样的冷漠态度：现行法律制度的弊病并不在刑罚方面而在于易出现差错的司法程序方面。在所有案件中该判死刑的案件所占比率不过千分之一，甚至更少。有谁会一想到这些案件可能是"可以挽回的"错案就感到欣慰呢?案件的错判只能说明现行的陪审制度、有关获取犯罪证据、提出起诉及进行上诉等一系列程序的具体规定和办法有必要加以修改，这才是我们面临的重任。对这一点缺乏认识，就是我前面曾提到的那种主要由对反常事物的特别敏感而引起的感情作用的反映。一个记者在报道死刑和最高法院的情况时总是极力指出，每当法庭复审死刑案件时法官们就会特别不安而谨慎小心。这对我们国家最高司法当局的法律道德是一种多么言不由衷的赞颂之辞!幸而在那些为遭错判的人辩护的人们之中有些人对这一点看得更明白。许多被认为遭错判的人现在之所以能蹲在监狱里受活罪，不是因为陪审团持有异议就是因为州长感觉有可疑之处而将死刑减轻为监禁。塞缪尔·H谢泼德医生杀妻一案就是这样被定为二级谋杀罪(即误杀--译者注)，被判终身徒刑的。据保罗．霍姆斯先生记述的有关他那一案件的多次庭审经过告诉人们：是警方的无能、报纸的煽动、公众对于富豪的妒忌及法律程序中的一些纰漏等因素的作用导致了最后的结局。但谢泼德医生的辩护人对于这位免受电椅之苦的"幸运儿"，如果能在十年之后获得假释后所要面临的情况并不抱任何幻想。"那样也并不能给他恢复从医生涯的权利。他的行医资格早已随着他的判刑定罪而被取消了。他必将终生蒙受假释犯的恶名，只要再小有过失，便可随时不经审讯被送回监狱。更糟的是，他得带着杀人犯的罪名终其_生。"
　　今天的道德观念究竟在起一种什么样的作用呢?假如一个人是个很可能重犯其暴力行为的危险分子，国家有什么权利在十年后将他释放出来呢?如果"终身监禁"在其生前就早已结束，那"终身监禁"的真正含义是什么呢?假释表面上看起来似乎表现了社会对身受囹圄之苦者的同情，同时又反映了当局想避免因公然释放嫌疑犯而引起"公众的不满"的愿望。所以，一旦众议平息下来，人犯也就放掉了。这样，他也就根本没有受到为了公众的安全而设置的枷锁的束缚。他确实受过惩罚，但只是一点点的惩罚--因为在废除派、陪审团及检察官们的反常观点看来，监狱本来就是这么回事。他们所谓"二级谋杀"似乎是说罪犯虽杀了人，但只是杀了"一点点"。
　　从另一方面来讲，既然死刑和无期徒刑被认为过分残酷，而又可预期被告人在今后对社会不会有什么危险--惩罚作为一种狭隘意识的反映已没有存在的必要--那么，破坏他和他一家人的生活对社会又能带来什么好处呢?
　　现在人们所接受的、而废除派一旦得势必将更加坚决地强加于我们的是一堆逻辑上的纷乱，这种纷乱决不会因下述信念而得以消除：既然有二级谋杀，就应当有二级死罪；如果对凶手不能完全确定而存有疑问的话，只要将死刑减轻为难以忍受的活罪，存疑便解决了；倘若我们无法预料一个杀人狂是否会再度伤人，那也只需衡量一下他在监狱里的"良好表现"，然后以真正的实验主义精神将他释放出来。
　　以上就是当我看到有关这个重大问题的讨论并对它进行思考时所感到的不可避免的想法。依我看来，如果这些想法同任何基于对客观存在的直接、具体的感受而进行的关于变革和改良的讨论不是毫不相干的话，那些认为废除了死刑世界就会变得纯洁的天真的社会改良主义者们就真是自欺欺人了。这个问题本应由社会全体来公断，但我作为社会的一分子，对目前的社会现实很感不安，因为我知道，在英国、美国乃至整个西方通常总有百数以上的人被迫在极其恶劣的条件下苟延残喘，所面对的只不过是一个毫无希望的未来；而另外一些人一～他们可能是头脑更糊涂，但无疑是更无力自控的人--则得到提前获释的便宜，这无论对社会还是对他们自己都只会带来危险。总而言之，我决不赞赏这样一种错误观念：只要取消一种对守法的良民显然起着保护作用的法律措施，我们这些要么成为受害者，要么成为囚徒或不受约束的杀人凶手的人就算是为维护人的生命的尊严贡献出了一份力量。
　　(摘自James K．Bell，Adrian A．Cohn： 《现代修辞》)
　　词汇(Vocabulary)
　　capital (adj.) : involving or punishable by death(originally by decapitation)(罪恶等可处)死刑的(原指可斩首的)
　　sheaf (n.) : a collection of things gathered together；bundle，as of papers(书等的)一捆
　　reproachful (adj.) : full of or expressing reproach，or blame，censure，etc．责备的；应受斥责的；可耻的
　　rapist (n.) : a person who has committed rape强奸犯
　　psychiatry (n.) : the branch of medicine concerned with the study, treatment，and prevention of disorders of the mind，including psychoses and neuroses，emotional and social maladjustments，etc．精神病学
　　assemblage (n.) : bringing or coming together；assembly集合，会合
　　conviction (n.) : firm or assured belief深信，确信；信服
　　airtight (adj.) : giving no opening for attack；invulnerable无懈可击的；天衣无缝的
　　frivolity (n.) : the quality or condition of being frivolous轻率；轻浮；无聊
　　sanguinary (adj.) : eager for bloodshed；bloodthirsty嗜血成性的；好杀戮的
　　concede (v.) : admit as true or valid；acknowledge承认；认以为真
　　outset (n.) : setting out；beginning；start开端；开始，起初
　　harrowing (adj.) : which causes mental distress to；agonizingly painful to the feelings精神痛苦的；烦恼的
　　barbarity (n.) : cruel or brutal behavior；inhumanity残暴，野蛮
　　homicide (n.) : any killing of one human being by another杀人
　　threshold (n.) : the entrance or beginning point of something入门；开始，开端
　　deter (v.) : keep or discourage(a person)from doing something by instilling fear，anxiety，doubt，etc．阻拦；制止；吓住
　　sanctity (n.) : saintliness or holiness；the fact or being sacred or inviolable神圣，圣洁；不可侵犯性
　　proposition (n.) : the act of proposing；something proposed；proposal提议，建议；提案；计划
　　vindictive (adj.) : revengeful in sprat；inclined to seek vengeance；characterized by vengeance有报复心的；志在复仇的；复仇的
　　presumptive (adj.) : giving reasonable ground for；belief；based on probability可据以推定的；假定的
　　obsessive (adj.) : of causing an obsession or obsessions分神的；被…缠住的
　　egotist (n.) : a person characterized by egotism自我中心主义者；利己主义者
　　infallible (adj.) : incapable of error；dependable；reliable；sure不会犯错误的；可信赖的；确实可靠的
　　qualm (n.) : a sudden feeling of uneasiness 0r doubt；misgiving疑虑；不安
　　invoke (v.) : ask solemnly for；beg for；implore；entreat恳求，乞求，请求
　　notwithstanding (prep.) : in spite of尽管
　　cutthroat (n.) : a person who cuts throat；murderer凶手；谋杀者
　　poker (n.) : a bar．usually of iron，for stirring a fire拨火棒；火钳
　　marksman (n.) : a person who shoots，esp. one who shoots well射手(尤指神枪手)
　　euthanasia (n.) : an easy and painless death安乐死
　　forfeit (v.) : lose，give up，or be deprived of as a forfeit for some crime，fault，etc．(因犯罪、过失、失职等而)丧失；被迫放弃，被剥夺
　　delinquency (n.) : failure or neglect to do what duty or law requires；a fault；misdeed失职，玩忽职守；过失；犯罪
　　prelude (n.) : anything serving as the introduction to a principal event，action，performance，etc．；preliminary part；preface；opening序言；序幕
　　rear (v.) : bring to maturity by educating，nourishing，etc. 抚养；培养
　　criminology (n.) : the scientific study and investigation of crime and criminals犯罪学；刑事学
　　virility (n.) : masculine strength and vigor男子气概
　　villainy (n.) : the fact or state of being villainous；a wicked，criminal deed邪恶；邪恶行径；罪行
　　specter (n.) : a ghost；apparition鬼怪，幽灵
　　disclose (v.) : reveal；make known透露，泄露；披露；使知道
　　conjecture (n.) : an inferring，theorizing，or predicting from incomplete or uncertain evidence；guesswork猜测，推测，猜想；推理
　　-sterile (adj.) : incapable of producing others of its kind；barren；unfruitful不生育的；贫瘠的；无成效的
　　ken (n.) : range of vision or sight；mental perception or recognition；range of knowledge视野；认识；理解；了解和知识范围
　　strangle (v.) : kill by squeezing the throat as with the hands，a noose，etc．，so as to cut off circulation of the blood扼死；勒死；绞死
　　maniac (n.) : a wildly or violently insane person；madman；lunatic疯子；躁狂者；狂人
　　boatload (n.) : all the freight or passengers that a boat can carry or contain一船货；一船旅客
　　skipper (n.) : the captain of a ship，esp. of a small ship or boat(小船的)船长
　　apparatus (n.) : the means or system by which something is kept in action or a desired result is obtained：organization组织；团体；机构；机关
　　detention (n.) : a detaining or being detained；specifically a keeping in custody，confinement拘留；扣留；监禁
　　animus (n.) : a feeling of strong i11 will or hatred；animosity仇恨，憎恶；敌意；恶意
　　discharge (v.) : release(a prisoner)from jail，(a defendant)from suspicion，(a patient)as cured，etc．释放(囚犯)；解除(对被告的)怀疑；允许(病人)出院
　　inmate (n.) : a person living with others in the same building，now esp. one confined with others in a prison or institution同住者(现尤指同狱犯人，同院病人等)
　　automation (n.) : the act or practice of using machines that need little or no human control，esp. in place of workers自动，自动化
　　passionnel (adj.) : (French)of passion[法语]激怒的
　　condone (v.) : forgive，pardon。or overlook(an offence)原谅，饶恕；宽恕；赦免
　　blackmailer (n.) : a person who gets or tries to get blackmail from敲诈者，勒索者
　　retribution (n.) : deserved punishment for evil done，or，sometimes，reward for good done；merited requital惩罚；报答
　　provocation (n.) : an act or instance provoking挑衅；激怒；刺激
　　nag (v.) : annoy by continual scolding，faultfinding，complaining，urging，etc．(不断责骂、挑剔、抱怨、催促而)使人烦恼
　　excoriate (v.) : denounce harshly严厉谴责，痛斥，痛骂
　　score (n.) : a grievance or wrong one seeks to settle or get even for宿怨-旧仇
　　seclusion (n.) : a secluding or being secluded；retirement；isolation；privacy隔离，隔绝；孤立；隐退
　　penitentiary n : a prison监狱；拘留所
　　mania (n.) : an excessive，persistent enthusiasm，liking，craving，or interest；obsession；craze狂热；热衷
　　presuppose (v.) : require or imply as a preceding condition以…为先决条件；作为前提
　　garble (v.) : select，suppress，improperly emphasize，or distort parts of(a story，etc．)in telling，so as to mislead or misrepresent(对小说等)断章取义；歪曲；篡改
　　tenacious (adj.) : stubborn；persistent固执的；坚持的，持久的
　　advocacy (n.) : the act of advocating，or speaking or writing in support拥护；提倡；辩护
　　revulsion (n.) : extreme disgust，shock，or repugnance；feeling of great loathing厌恶，反感
　　hypnotize (v.) : affect or influence as if by hypnotism；spellblind使着迷，迷住
　　prophylactic (adj.) : preventive or protective，esp.，preventing against disease预防性的(尤指预防疾病)
　　dwarf (v.) : make small or insignificant使矮小；使无足轻重
　　deem (v.) : think，consider，believe想；认为；相信
　　deliberative adj. : of or for deliberating审议的；评论的；讨论的
　　diet (n.) : a national or local legislative assembly in some countries(某些国家的)国会，议会；地方议会
　　inkwell (n.) : a container for holding ink，usually set in the top of a desk，inkstand，etc．(镶在桌上或墨水台上的)墨水池
　　ludicrous (n.) : causing laughter because absurd or ridiculous；laughably absurd荒唐得滑稽的；荒谬可笑的
　　mitigate (v.) : make or become milder，less severe，less rigorous or Less painful；moderate(使)缓和；(使)镇静；减轻
　　vicarious (adj.) : shared in or experienced by imagined participation in another's experience(假想身临其境而)感受的
　　shed (v.) : cause to flow in a stream or fall in drops流出；流下
　　infamy (n.) : very bad reputation；notoriety；disgrace；dishonor臭名昭著；丢脸；不光彩；不名誉
　　stench (n.) : an offensive smell or odor；stink恶臭，臭气
　　rack (v.) : trouble，torment，or afflict折磨，使痛苦
　　promiscuity (n.) : a state，quality，or instance of being promiscuous，esp. in sexual relations混杂性；杂乱(尤指男女乱交)
　　impotent (adj.) : lacking physical strength；weak无力的，虚弱的；衰弱的
　　exemplar (n.) : a person or thing regarded as worthy of imitation；model；pattern；archetype模范，典范；典型；榜样
　　tardy (adj.) : slow in moving，acting，etc．；late，delayed慢的，行动缓慢的；迟的，迟到的
　　miscarriage (n.) : failure t0 carry out what was intended(计划等的)失败；审判错误；未得到预期的结果
　　irrevocable (adj.) : that can't be undone；unalterable不能取消的，不可废止的；不可变更的
　　acquittal (n.) : setting free or being set free by judgement of the court释放，开释；宣判无罪，赦免
　　implausible (adj.) : not plausible似乎无理的，难以置信的，似乎不可能的
　　ostracism (n.) : a rejection or exclusion by general consent，as from a group or from acceptance by society排斥；放逐；流放
　　detached (adj.) : not involved by emotion，interests，etc．；aloof；impartial公正的，超然的，不偏袒的
　　arbiter (n.) : a person selected to judge a dispute；umpire；arbitrator公断人，仲裁人
　　fallacious (adj.) : containing a fallacy；erroneous谬误的
　　callous (adj.) : 1acking pity，mercy，etc．；unfeeling；insensitive无同情心的；无情的；无感觉的
　　tribunal (n.) : a court of justice法庭，法院
　　languish (v.) : 1iver under distressing conditions；continue in a state of suffering受折磨，受苦
　　commute (v.) : change(an obligation，punishment，etc．) to one that is less severe减(刑)；减轻(责任等)
　　demagogy (n.) : the methods or practices of a demogogue煽动，鼓动，蛊惑人心的宣传
　　mischance (n.) : an unlucky accident；back luck；misadventure不幸事件，不幸；灾难
　　vindicator (n.) : a person who clears from criticism，blame，guilt，suspicion，etc．辩护人，辩白人
　　parole (n.) : the release of a prisoner before his sentence has expired，on condition of future good behavior(刑满前的)假释
　　stigma (n.) : something that detracts from the character or reputation of a person，group，etc．；mark of disgrace or reproach耻辱，污名
　　misstep (n.) : a wrong or awkward step；a mistake in conduct失足；失误，失策
　　peter (v．[colloq．]) : become gradually smaller，weaker，etc．，and then cease or disappear[口]逐渐枯竭；渐趋消失
　　remorse (n.) : a deep，torturing sense of guilt felt over a wrong that one has done；self-reproach懊悔，悔恨；自责
　　incarceration (n.) : imprisonment关押，监禁
　　meliorist (n.) : a person who believes that the world naturally tends to get better and，esp.，that this tendency can be furthered by human effort社会向善论者(一种认为社会自然地向好的方向发展的理论
　　短语 (Expressions)
　　give pause to sb．／sth :   give pause to sb．使某人踌躇不前
　　例： Her anger gave pause to his further action．她生气了，这使他不敢马上采取进一步的行动。
　　do justice t0 sth．／sb．:   treat fairly公平对待，适当处理
　　例： That subject was so complex that I could not do justice to it in a short speech．这个主题太复杂，我无法在一篇短小的发言里就把它阐述清楚。
　　at the outest :   in the beginning在开始时
　　例： Things went well at the Vbly outset．刚开始时一切进展顺利。
　　preside over :   be the head or director of负责，主持，管理
　　例： She presided over the business of this store．她管理这个店的业务。
　　to the teeth :   be lacking nothing；compIetely全副地，全部地
　　例： "alTned t0 the teeth武装到牙齿／be dressed to the teeth全副打扮
　　on the march :   on the march在行进中，在发展中
　　例： Technology is on the march．科技正在发展中。
　　beyond one's ken :   not within one's range of knowledge超出某人的知识范围
　　例： How can I answer those questions that are well beyond mv ken?我怎么能回答得出那些远远超出我知识范围的问题呢?
　　trot out :   produce；bring out给人看，炫耀，搬出
　　例： trot out the spokesman to face the press搬出发言人来对付新闻界
　　peter out :   diminish slowly and come to an end；dwindle逐渐耗尽，逐渐终止
　　例： The storm petered out finally．暴风雨最终逐渐平息下来。。
　　coupled with :   if one thing is coupled with another．they happen or exist together and produce a particular result加上，外加
　　例： Drought coupled with high temperatures caused the crops to fail．干旱外加高温使农作物歉收了。
　　strike a blow for :   do something to help an idea，belief，or organiza-tion拥护，为…而战斗
　　例： It's time we struck a blow for social equality．是我们为社会平等而战的时候了。