|
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not sufficient to restore the
exact amount taken. For it is written (Ex. 22:1): "If a man
shall steal an ox or a sheep and kill or sell it, he shall restore five
oxen for one ox, and four sheep for one sheep." Now everyone is
bound to keep the commandments of the Divine law. Therefore a thief
is bound to restore four- or fivefold.
Objection 2: Further, "What things soever were written, were
written for our learning" (Rm. 15:4). Now Zachaeus said
(Lk. 19:8) to our Lord: "If I have wronged any man of any
thing, I restore him fourfold." Therefore a man is bound to restore
several times over the amount he has taken unjustly.
Objection 3: Further, no one can be unjustly deprived of what he is
not bound to give. Now a judge justly deprives a thief of more than
the amount of his theft, under the head of damages. Therefore a man
is bound to pay it, and consequently it is not sufficient to restore
the exact amount.
On the contrary, Restitution re-establishes equality where an unjust
taking has caused inequality. Now equality is restored by repaying the
exact amount taken. Therefore there is no obligation to restore more
than the exact amount taken.
I answer that, When a man takes another's thing unjustly, two
things must be considered. One is the inequality on the part of the
thing, which inequality is sometimes void of injustice, as is the case
in loans. The other is the sin of injustice, which is consistent with
equality on the part of the thing, as when a person intends to use
violence but fails.
As regards the first, the remedy is applied by making restitution,
since thereby equality is re-established; and for this it is enough
that a man restore just so much as he has belonging to another. But as
regards the sin, the remedy is applied by punishment, the infliction
of which belongs to the judge: and so, until a man is condemned by the
judge, he is not bound to restore more than he took, but when once he
is condemned, he is bound to pay the penalty.
Hence it is clear how to answer the First Objection: because this
law fixes the punishment to be inflicted by the judge. Nor is this
commandment to be kept now, because since the coming of Christ no man
is bound to keep the judicial precepts, as stated above (FS,
Question 104, Article 3). Nevertheless the same might be
determined by human law, and then the same answer would apply.
Reply to Objection 2: Zachaeus said this being willing to do more
than he was bound to do; hence he had said already: "Behold . . .
the half of my goods I give to the poor."
Reply to Objection 3: By condemning the man justly, the judge can
exact more by way of damages; and yet this was not due before the
sentence.
|
|