Question

求高手翻译....

Even so, it may be worthwhile to consider a few of Holmes' well-known
sentences, if for no other reason than to recall the flavor of the style. The
problems of modern penal law still make pertinent the observation that
"the rules of law are or should be based upon a morality which is
generally accepted, [for] no rule . . . founded on a theory of absolute
unselfishness can be laid down without a breach between law and work-
ing beliefs.-6 The elusive content of the "voluntary act" concept has
probably never been more fully captured than when Holmes observed:
"And as an adult who is master of himself foresees with mysterious
accuracy the outward adjustment which will follow his inward effort,
that adjustment may be said to be intended."7 Some of the other familiar
quotations are less successful. In discussing the law of criminal attempts,
he says: "The importance of the intent is not to show that the act was
wicked, but to show that it was likely to be followed by hurtful conse-
quences."s The proposition is arresting and no doubt constituted a con-
tribution to analysis in a difficult area. But as a basis for an adequate
rationale of the law of attempts, as Holmes undoubtedly intended it, it
surely fails. So also, his observation that "Theft may be called an attempt
to permanently deprive a man of his property, which is punished with
the same severity whether successful or not.9 The observation brings a
new insight to a familiar problem, but Holmes' effort to advance it in
support of his general thesis seems particularly unpersuasive.
The second chapter of The Common Law begins with a reiteration of
the proposition that the early forms of liability were based on intentional
wrongs and that the ancient law expresses primarily the impulse of
vengeance. Holmes quickly moves to a consideration of the purposes of
criminal punishment. He perceives at the outset that reformation of the
offender does not alone provide an adequate basis for a theory of
criminal liability.10 In this he was surely correct. The reformative theory
presupposes an offender. An offender presupposes a definition of crime.
It would be difficult to conceive of a body of substantive criminal law
that gives consistent and exclusive expression to a principle of rehabilita-
tion. In defining crime the law asks not, Who requires rehabilitation?
but, What sorts of conduct imperil vital public and private interests?
Since Holmes' discussion is directed primarily to a theory of the sub-
stantive law, he thereby avoids many problems of theory and practice,
much discussed in the modern era, that have accompanied the rise of the
rehabilitative ideal.

Answer 1

【手工翻译】
即便如此，哪怕除了回想福尔摩斯的一贯风格这一理由，他的几句名言仍旧是值得思考的。现代刑法中的问题始终与他的“法律条例是且应当是建立在众所接受的道德的基础上，因为建立在纯粹的无私上的条文都会由于法律与普遍信仰之间的冲突而被迫搁置”这一观点相关。“故意犯罪”的概念中难懂的内容在福尔摩斯的观察下显得前所未有的清晰：“当一个能够控制自己的成年人以极高的精确度预见到自己的行为将导致的危害社会的结果时，这样的结果应该被认为是故意犯罪。”而与之相比，其他广为人知的名句对此的解释就显得不那么明了了。在评论犯罪未遂法时，他说：“犯罪意图的重要性不在于表明该行为是出于邪恶的目的，而在于表明该意图会导致伤害性的结果”。这一有趣的想法毫无疑问对于分析这一复杂的问题作出了贡献。但毫无疑问的是，福尔摩斯试图使之成为犯罪未遂法律适当的理论依据，这一点是失败的。因此还有他的理论“盗窃可以被称为一种永久剥夺他人财物的企图，无论成功与否应受到相同程度的责罚“。这个想法为这一熟悉的问题带来了一个新的视角，但福尔摩斯试图以之支持他的总论题似乎并不那么有说服力。
习惯法的第二章以重复“早期形式的责任以故意犯罪为基础”的议题开始，而古代法最初表达的则是复仇的冲动。福尔摩斯很快将思考中心转移到刑罚的目的上。他注意到一个开端--罪犯的改造并不仅仅为犯罪可能性的理论提供坚实的基础。这一点上他完全正确。改造理论预先假定一名罪犯。一名罪犯预先假定犯罪的定义。设想一部持续完整地表达出复原准则的独立刑法主体是较为困难的。定义一项犯罪时，谁会要求改造？但是,何种实施方法会危及重要公众和私人爱好？由于福尔摩斯的讨论最初指向独立法，他从而便避免了很多理论与实践方面的问题。而这些问题伴随着罪犯改造的理想化程度的上升，在现代社会被越来越多地提及。
【非法律专业 完全不知道这是说的什么 专业名词误差还请谅解 文中几处句子似乎不全 凑合着很辛苦坚持翻完了 希望能帮到你】

Answer 2

即使如此，它可能是值得考虑的几个福尔摩斯的知名度
句子，如果没有其他原因，比召回的韵味的风格。本
问题的现代刑法还使有关的观察
“法律规则是或应该是基于道德
一般认为，[ ]不规则。的。建立在绝对优势理论
无私可以规定没有违反法律和工作—
我的信仰。- 6内容的难以捉摸的“自愿”概念
可能从未被更完全比福尔摩斯观察：
“作为一个成人谁主宰自己的预见与神秘
精度向外调整，将跟随他的内心的努力，
这种调整可以说是打算。”7的其他一些熟悉的
报价不太成功。在讨论刑事法的尝试，
他说：“重要的意图是不显示的行为
邪恶的，但是，表明它可能是其次是有害的后果—
如何。”的命题是逮捕和毫无疑问构成欺诈—
分布分析在一个困难的领域。但足够的基础
依据法律的企图，福尔摩斯无疑是有意，它
当然不。所以，他的观察，可称为“盗窃企图
永久剥夺一个人的财产，这是惩罚
同一程度能否成功的9个观测带来了。
新的认识到熟悉的问题，但是福尔摩斯的努力推进它
支持他的论文似乎特别缺乏说服力。
第一章的普通法开始与重复
这一命题的责任的早期形式是故意
错误和古法主要表现的冲动
复仇。福尔摩斯迅速移动到一个考虑的目的
刑事处罚。他认为当初的改革
罪犯并不能提供足够的基础理论
刑事liability.10在这方面他肯定正确的。改革理论
假定一个罪犯。一个罪犯的前提是犯罪的定义。
很难设想一个机构的实质性刑法
给出了一致的和独特的表达原则的能力—
问题。在确定犯罪的法律要求，谁需要康复？
但是，什么样的行为危及重要的公共和私人利益？
由于福尔摩斯的讨论主要是针对一个理论分—
stantive法，从而避免了许多理论与实践问题，
讨论了很多现代的时代，已经伴随着上升的
康复理想。

Answer 3

到是能翻译，但是，好长啊，谁愿意翻译啊！

追问

没办法啊，帮个忙吧！