“If judge and jury had to hang the prisoner themselves in cold blood, there would be fewer executions; if we each had to butcher our own meat, there would be a great increase in the number of vegetarians.”

Variant: If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.

Pt. IV, ch. 2, pg 242
The Quiet American (1955)

"Tobey Maguire - Web Exclusive", interview in Parade.com (1 April 2007) http://web.archive.org/web/20070930165114/http://www.parade.com/export/sites/default/articles/editions/2007/edition_04-01-2007/Tobey-Maguire. Quoted in "The Green Quote: Tobey Maguire Prefers To Eat At Home", in Ecorazzi.com (24 July 2008) http://www.ecorazzi.com/2008/07/24/the-green-quote-tobey-maguire-prefers-to-eat-at-home/.

Source: Linda's Kitchen: Simple and Inspiring Recipes for Meals Without Meat

Trial testimony (19 November 1970)

Letter to Abigail Adams about the Sedition Acts (1804) https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-0348
1800s, First Presidential Administration (1801–1805)
Context: You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. but nothing in the constitution has given them a right to decide for the executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independant in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because that power was placed in their hands by the constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the constitution That instrument(The Constitution) meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.

Lillian Gish

"Anarchist's Progress" in The American Mercury (1927); § III : To Abolish Crime or to Monopolize It? http://www.mises.org/daily/2714
Context: Once, I remember, I ran across the case of a boy who had been sentenced to prison, a poor, scared little brat, who had intended something no worse than mischief, and it turned out to be a crime. The judge said he disliked to sentence the lad; it seemed the wrong thing to do; but the law left him no option. I was struck by this. The judge, then, was doing something as an official that he would not dream of doing as a man; and he could do it without any sense of responsibility, or discomfort, simply because he was acting as an official and not as a man. On this principle of action, it seemed to me that one could commit almost any kind of crime without getting into trouble with one's conscience.
Clearly, a great crime had been committed against this boy; yet nobody who had had a hand in it — the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, the complaining witness, the policemen and jailers — felt any responsibility about it, because they were not acting as men, but as officials. Clearly, too, the public did not regard them as criminals, but rather as upright and conscientious men.
The idea came to me then, vaguely but unmistakably, that if the primary intention of government was not to abolish crime but merely to monopolize crime, no better device could be found for doing it than the inculcation of precisely this frame of mind in the officials and in the public; for the effect of this was to exempt both from any allegiance to those sanctions of humanity or decency which anyone of either class, acting as an individual, would have felt himself bound to respect — nay, would have wished to respect. This idea was vague at the moment, as I say, and I did not work it out for some years, but I think I never quite lost track of it from that time.