TWO:For the same reason it is of little avail to call in question, as Beccaria does, the right of society to inflict death as a punishment. There may be a distinction between the right of society and its might, but it is one of little comfort to the man who incurs its resentment. A man in a dungeon does better to amuse himself with spiders and cobwebs than with reflections on the encroachment of the law upon his liberty, or with theories about the rights of government. Whenever society has ceased to exercise any of its powers against individuals, it has not been from the acceptance of any new doctrine as to its rights, but from more enlightened views as to its real interests, and a cultivated dislike of cruelty and oppression.
当社は昭和13年の設立以来、つねに時代のニーズに即した製品をめざし、新技術?新製品の開発を重ねてきました。 中でもアルコール蒸留技術は、国内業界のパイオニアとして目覚ましい成長発展を遂げ、80年にわたる実績を築きあげました。そして今、その歴史によって培われた経験と技術力は化学?食品?薬品?産業機械など、幅広い分野で生かされています。今後はさらに新時代に向けた技術革新を積極的に進めると同時に、新分野の開拓にも意欲的に取組み、一層の発展を図っていきます。
| 社名 | 日本化学機械製造株式会社
（英文名称 Japan Chemical Engineering & Machinery Co., Ltd.） |
|---|---|
| 代表者 | 取締役会長 高橋 正一
取締役社長 髙橋 一雅 |
| 所在地 | 〈本社?工場〉 〒532-0031
|
| 設立 | 昭和13年10月31日 |
| 資本金 | 2億7千5百万円 |
| 事業内容 | 化学機械?化学装置、燃焼装置、超低温液化ガス機器の設計、製作、販売 |
| 当社の特色 |
|
| 従業員数 | 160人（2019年4月現在） |
| 年間売上高 | 6,119百万円（2019年4月決算） |
| 取引銀行 | りそな銀行堂島支店 三井住友銀行十三支店 池田泉州銀行庄内支店 関西みらい銀行十三支店 滋賀銀行新大阪支店 三菱UFJ銀行梅田中央支店 |
| 許可登録 | 特定建設業許可 国土交通大臣許可（特27）第5208号
一級建築士事務所 大阪府知事登録(ロ)第24084号 その他の認可?承認?認定の詳細はこちら |
| 取得 マネジメント システム |
|
TWO: Our laws prohibit suggestive (leading) questions in a lawsuit: those, that is (according to the doctors of law), which, instead of applying, as they should do,[145] to the genus in the circumstances of a crime, refer to the species; those, in other words, which from their immediate connection with a crime suggest to the accused a direct answer. Questions, according to the criminal lawyers, ought, so to speak, to envelop the main fact spirally and never to attack it in a direct line. The reasons for this method are, either that an answer may not be suggested to the accused which may place him face to face with the charge against him, or perhaps because it seems unnatural for him directly to criminate himself. But, whichever of these reasons it may be, the contradiction is remarkable between the existence of such a custom and the legal authorisation of torture; for what interrogatory can be more suggestive than pain? The former reason applies to the question of torture, because pain will suggest to a strong man obstinate silence, in order that he may exchange the greater penalty for the lesser, whilst it will suggest to a weak man confession, in order that he may escape from present torment, which has more influence over him than pain which is to come. The other reason evidently applies too, for if a special question leads a man to confess against natural right, the agonies of torture will more easily do the same. But men are more governed by the difference of names than by that of things.But there is a still further uncertainty of punishment, for it is as well known in the criminal world as elsewhere that the sentence pronounced in court is not the real sentence, and that neither penal servitude for[96] five years nor penal servitude for life mean necessarily anything of the sort. The humanity of modern legislation insists on a remission of punishment, dependent on a convicts life in the public works prisons, in order that the element of hope may brighten his lot and perchance reform his character. This remission was at first dependent simply on his conduct, which was perhaps too generously called good where it was hard for it to be bad; now it depends on his industry and amount of work done. Yet the element of hope might be otherwise assured than by lessening the certainty of punishment, say, by associating industry or good conduct with such little privileges of diet, letter-writing, or receiving of visits, as still shed some rays of pleasure over the monotony of felon-life. It should not be forgotten, that the Commission of 1863, which so strongly advocated the remissibility of parts of penal sentences, did so in despite of one of its principal members, against no less an authority than the Lord Chief Justice, then Sir Alexander Cockburn.[55] The very fact of the remissibility of a sentence is an admission of its excessive severity; for to say that a sentence is never carried out is to say that it need never have been inflicted.