The Old Yellow Book: Source of Robert Browning's The Ring and the Book. Various

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ stands in the way of that. This is included among his Constitutions as the 71st. By this it was decreed that such torment could not be inflicted unless these two features jointly concur: namely, that the crime be very atrocious and that the accused be burdened with the strongest proofs. [Citations.]

      But a crime is said to be "very atrocious" provided it is one for which a penalty more severe than mere death should be inflicted, such as useless mutilation, burning, and the like. Farinaccius qu. 18, num. 68, etc. And such a death, as ignominious and infamous, has no place with the persons of nobles. [Citations.]

      Hence it is much less so here, because we are not arguing about the death penalty even, which does not enter into the present case for reasons given above. And Gabriellus speaks to this effect on the point that such a crime may not be said to be qualified.

      What has been said in favour of Guido, the principal, also stands in favour of the aforesaid Blasio, Domenico, Francesco, and Alessandro; because they cannot be punished with the ordinary penalty, but only with the same penalty as the principal. [Citation.] Baldo cites a case under the statute which shows that one under bann for a certain crime cannot be killed save by the enemy who had him put under bann; and he says that if the enemy has him assassinated, the assassin is not punished. And he gives this reason, that what is permissible in the person of the one giving the order should be held as permissible in the one to whom orders are given; and he says it had been so held in a case under that law. Castro [Citation] holds that when one is permitted under the statute to take vengeance upon a person who has given him offence, he is also permitted to assemble his friends, to afford him aid, and that they shall go unpunished, just as the principal does. He also asserts that Jacobus Butrigarus [Citation], held thus, in cons. 277, where he speaks of the case of a husband who had assembled men to beat one who had wished to shame the modesty of his wife, he ordered his wife to pretend to give ear, and when the intriguer had come, murder was committed. And he says that men brought together in this way should be spared, because such an assembly was permissible for the husband, who was principal. [Citation.] Jason holds that in any vengeance permitted by law, one cannot demand it of another; yet he to whom it is permitted may take fellows and accomplices with him for the same act, and if they kill in company with him they shall not be held to account for the murder nor for the aid they have given; and he says that this opinion should be much kept in mind. Cæpollinus also illustrates this in several cases, especially in that of certain men who had killed one keeping the company of the sister of the man who had assembled them; and he says that they should not be punished, just as the principal was not, and he gained his point so that it was thus adjudged. [Citations.]

      Soccini also holds it should be thus adjudged, unless one wishes to say that they should be punished with a slighter penalty than the principal, as often happens in the case of auxiliaries. And he speaks in our very circumstances of men assembled by a husband for the sake of killing one who had polluted his wife. In these same circumstances, see also Parisius. [Citation.] Carera [Citation] speaks of a father who had his daughter (who had been keeping bad company) killed by an assassin; and he says that neither the father nor the murderer are to be held to account. [Citation.]

      Marsilius also, after placing in the very beginning this principle that when one matter is conceded all seem to be conceded which lead thereto, draws inference therefrom for the present case and many reasons for it are adduced. Cassanis also [Citation] holds that men assembled in this way are not held responsible either for the murder or for the aid furnished, if they do the killing in the company of the principal. And in these same circumstances Garzonus speaks, decision 71, throughout.

      Nor does it stand in the way of our reasoning that one of the aforesaid defendants had inflicted wounds with his own hands, or had killed one of the victims; as Francesco has confessed that he inflicted four or five wounds in the back of Francesca Pompilia. Even in these circumstances the rule holds good that auxiliaries shall not be punished with greater penalty than the principal. And so affirm individually the following authorities among those recently cited. [Citations.]

      And Garzoni testifies that it was so adjudged in the said decision 71, where we read: "Or he may have with himself associates for this act," and if they kill the adulterers in company of the principal they are held to very slight account, either for the murder or for the aid given, and it was so adjudged.

      And even in the more extreme case of one killing by assassination, and consequently in the absence of the principal, this is the opinion of Baldo [Citation], where we read: "And now it is inquired whether an assassin is ever punished, and I say he is not; because what is permitted in the person giving command is also permitted in the person commanded." Castro [Citation] also says: "Because what I can do of myself I can have done through my helpers who are necessary for that purpose." And Afflitto [Citation] says: "Either with one's own hands, or by help of another, even with the influence of money, and thus by an assassin; for Baldo says on this same point: 'What is permitted in the person giving command is also permitted in the person commanded'; and he witnesses that it was so adjudged." [Citations.] Marta [speaks as follows]: "Much more so because authorities affirm that a husband, who on account of fear cannot kill the adulteress, may even by the help of money demand of another that he kill her, and neither of them is then to be punished."

      But whatever Caballus [Citation] may say to the contrary, he bases his opinion upon Castro and Rollandus. Castro, however, favours our opinion, as is to be seen in No. 3. Rollandus should not be given heed; for when he offers this very same opinion about the statute which permits any one to take vengeance; and says that since this kind of permission is personal, it cannot be passed on from one to another, this opinion of his is expressly contrary to the teaching of Baldo, Castro, Jason, and others, whom we have alleged above in paragraph quae dicta sunt. And since this opinion of ours is milder and more equitable, it should hold good, as Jason decides on this point. [Citation.]

      Nor can the punishment be increased because of the alleged carrying of prohibited arms; because the latter offence is included then with the real crime. [Citations.] In Guazzin we read that this is so, even if for the carrying of the arms a greater penalty would be inflicted [than for the principal offence]. And so, whenever it is evident that the crime has been committed for honour's sake and for a just grievance, as in the present case, the carrying of the arms may go unpunished, or at least it should not be punished with a more severe penalty than should be imposed for the principal crime itself. Thus Policardus [Citation] well affirms when speaking of arms which are considered treacherous by the Banns.

      These claims should hold good more readily as regards Domenico and Francesco, who are foreigners, and are therefore not included in any of the Apostolic Constitutions or Banns, which prohibit the bearing of arms under very heavy penalties. [Citations.]

      Especially since they are minors, as is made clear in the course of the trial, pp. 35 and 304; in which case they are likewise not bound by these Constitutions and Banns, which give judgment upon the crime of a minor. For the power to make and establish such regulations was lacking in the Prince or public official concerned. [Citations.]

      Such are the matters which, in view of the excessive scantiness of time, I have been able to collect in discharge of my duty for the defence of these poor prisoners. Nor do I at all distrust that my Lords Judges, when they see that too little has been said, will wish to supply and offer what is lacking out of the high rectitude for which they are distinguished. For this would be quite in accord with the decree of Emperors Diocletian and Maximian, as related. [Citation.] And they will follow the advice of Hippolitus Marsilius, famous in criminal proceedings, who says that a judge is obliged by his office to seek out grounds of defence for the accused. [Citations.]

      Desiderio Spreti, Advocate for the Poor.

      [File-title of Pamphlet 3.]

      By the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord Governor in Criminal Cases:

      ROMAN MURDER-CASE.

      In СКАЧАТЬ