University of Virginia Library

Search this document 
  
expand section 
  
expand section 
  

expand section1. 
expand section2. 
expand section3. 
expand section4. 
expand section5. 
expand section6. 
expand section7. 
expand section8. 
expand section9. 
expand section10. 
expand section11. 
expand section12. 
expand section13. 
expand section14. 
expand section15. 
expand section16. 
expand section17. 
expand section18. 
expand section19. 
expand section20. 
expand section21. 
expand section22. 
expand section23. 
expand section24. 
expand section25. 
expand section26. 
expand section27. 
expand section28. 
collapse section29. 
expand section29.1. 
expand section29.2. 
 29.3. 
 29.4. 
expand section29.5. 
expand section29.6. 
expand section29.7. 
expand section29.8. 
expand section29.10. 
expand section29.10. 
expand section29.11. 
collapse section29.12. 
12. That Laws which appear the same are sometimes really different.
  
  
expand section29.13. 
expand section29.14. 
expand section29.15. 
expand section29.16. 
expand section29.17. 
 29.18. 
expand section29.19. 
expand section30. 
expand section31. 

29.12. 12. That Laws which appear the same are sometimes really different.

The Greek and Roman laws inflicted the same punishment on the receiver as on the thief; [18] the French law does the same. The former acted rationally, but the latter does not. Among the Greeks and Romans the thief was condemned to a pecuniary punishment, which ought also to be inflicted on the receiver; for every man that contributes in what shape soever to a damage is obliged to repair it. But as the punishment of theft is capital with us, the receiver cannot be punished like the thief without carrying things to excess. A receiver may act innocently on a thousand occasions: the thief is always culpable; one hinders the conviction of a crime, the other commits it; in one the whole is passive, the other is active; the thief must surmount more obstacles, and his soul must be more hardened against the laws.

The civilians have gone further; they look upon the receiver as more odious than the thief, [19] for were it not for the receiver the theft, say they, could not be long concealed. But this again might be right when there was only a pecuniary punishment; the affair in question was a damage done, and the receiver was generally better able to repair it; but when the punishment became capital, they ought to have been directed by other principles.

Footnotes

[18]

Leg. 1, ff. de receptatoribus.

[19]

Ibid.