Para quem achou a acha como estranha a sugestão que o objectivo primeiro do criminoso no direito penal deve ser a restituição da vítima, em vez de se passar a sua pena em prisões com TVCabo e ar condicionado, á mistura com liçóes de maior criminalidade, enquanto pelo caminho se arrisca a ser violado ou a tornar-se viciado... mas ainda assim suportado pelos impostos das vítimas, fica também a devida conclusão liberal sobre a soberania da vitima em poder perdoar ou diminuir a pena (limitada no seu máximo pela restituição):
"The victim, then, has the right to exact punishment up to the proportional amount as determined by the extent of the crime, but he is also free either to allow the aggressor to buy his way out of punishment, or to forgive the aggressor partially or altogether. The proportionate level of punishment sets the right of the victim, the permissible upper bound of punishment; but how much or whether the victim decides to exercise that right is up to him. As Professor Armstrong puts it:
[T]here should be a proportion between the severity of the crime and the severity of the punishment. It sets an upper limit to the punishment, suggests what is due. . . . Justice gives the appropriate authority [in our view, the victim] the right to punish offenders up to some limit, but one is not necessarily and invariably obliged to punish to the limit of justice. Similarly, if I lend a man money I have a right, in justice, to have it returned, but if I choose not to take it back I have not done anything unjust. I cannot claim more than is owed to me but I am free to claim less, or even to claim nothing.[8]" Rothbard
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário