未登录,请登录后再发表信息
最新评论 (0)
播放视频

像律师一样思考

Thinking like a lawyer

[MUSIC PLAYING]
德州农工大学法学院
LAW.TAMU.EDU
像律师一样思考
Every laws school promises to teach its students to think like lawers
每个法学院都承诺教学生“像律师一样思考”
But what does that mean?
但这是什么意思呢?
What does it mean to think like a lawyer?
什么是“像律师一样思考”呢?
At the Texas A&M School of Law,
在德州农工大学法学院
we break the process of thinking like a lawyer into discrete steps
我们把“像律师一样思考”的过程分成独立步骤
and teach those steps to our students explicitly.
并将这些步骤详尽地教给学生
Let’s look at a very simple example,
来看一个非常简单的例子
a problem that requires no prior legal experience to understand.
一个无需具备法律经验就能理解的问题
A jogger runs along a beach past a sig
一位慢跑者沿沙滩跑步
n that says, “$100 fine for littering.”
经过一个标注“乱扔罚100美元”的警示牌
A few steps past the sign, the jogger pauses to eat a banana.
经过警示牌几步后 他停下来吃了个香蕉
When he’s done, he throws the peel on the ground.
吃完后 他把香蕉皮扔地上
A police officer sees the jogger drop the peel.
一位警官看见慢跑者扔香蕉皮
She recalls that her supervisor did not issue a littering ticket to
她回忆起自己的领导
to a person who poured coffee on the ground.
并没有给在地上乱倒咖啡的人处罚单
But the supervisor did issue a ticket to
但是他们确实给
someone who threw a candy bar wrapper on the ground.
在地上乱扔糖果纸的人处罚单了
Should the police officer ticket the jogger?
那警察应给慢跑者处罚单吗?
Legal reasoning, or thinking like a lawyer, is rule-based reasoning.
“法律推理” 或“像律师一样思考”是基于规则的推理
Lawyers always look for the rule that governs the conduct in question.
律师们总在寻找主导问题推导的准则
Here, the rule is simple.
这个案例的规则很简单
$100 fine for littering.
乱扔垃圾罚款100美元
But what does”littering” mean?
但什么是“乱扔”?
Here, “littering” is potentially ambiguous.
这里可能没有明确什么是“乱扔”行为
When part of a rule is ambiguous,
当部分规则模凌两可时
lawyers look to see how the rule was applied in prior situations.
律师们会参照之前的案例中规则是如何运用的
Prior situations are called precedents.
之前的案例也称“先例”
By comparing the facts of the current case to the facts of precedents,
通过比较现案与先例事实
lawyers can predict how the rule will apply in the current case.
律师们能推测规则将如何用到现案
This process of comparison is called analogical reasoning, or reasoning by analogy.
该比较过程称“类比推理”或“比拟推理”
“Analogical reasoning” is just a fancy term for something
“类比推理”仅是个花哨术语
we all do every day
我们每天都这么做
comparing two or more things to see how similar they are.
通过比较来了解两个或多个事物有多相似
Here, we have two precedents that can help us understand what”littering” means.
这里 有两个先例帮助我们理解什么是“乱扔”
In the first case, someone who poured coffee on the ground was not ticket for the littering.
事例一 在地上倒咖啡的人没有被处罚单
In the second case, someone who threw a candy bar wrapper on the ground was ticketed for littering.
事例二 在地上扔糖果纸的人被处罚单了
So here’s the point of comparison.
所以这就是对比要点
Is a banana peel more like coffee, or more like a candy bar wrapper?
香蕉皮是更像咖啡 还是糖果纸呢?
If the banana peel is more like the coffee,
如果更像咖啡
then the officer should not issue a ticket.
则警察不应处罚单
But if the banana peel is more like the candy bar wrapper,
但如果香蕉皮更像糖果纸
then the officer should issue a ticket.
那警察应处罚单
How would a lawyer compare these three items?
律师如何比较这三件物品?
By figuring out what attributes define them.
他们会通过物品属性进行判定
Lawyers call such attributes “factors.”
律师们称这些属性为“要素”
Let’s see what attributes, or factors,
看看这三件物品
we can come up with for these three items.
我们能想到哪些属性或“要素”?
To keep track of the factors,
为记录这些要素
we’ll use a device I call the case grid.
我们会用我称为“案件网格”的方法
Let’s list our three cases
我们把三个事例列在表格中
Coffee candy wrapper and banana along the top.
咖啡 糖果纸和香蕉皮列在最上面一行
We’ll list our factors down the left column,
左侧第一栏列出要素
and we’ll leave the last row for the result ticket or no ticket.
在最后一行统计结果:罚款或不罚款
We already know the answer in two of the cases,
由于已知其中两事例答案
so we can fill those in now.
所以可以把它们的结果填上
We’ll leave a question mark for the banana peel.
香蕉皮一栏我们填问号
A creative lawyer will come up with as many factors as possible
有创造性的律师会尽可能想出更多的要素
But in the interest of time, let’s limit ourselves to just three.
但为节约时间 此处仅举出三个要素
Our first factor, or point of comparison, will be liquid or solid.
要素或对比点一 它是液体还是固体
The coffee is liquid, but the candy wrapper and banana peel are solid.
咖啡为液体 但糖果纸和香蕉皮为固体
Our second factor will be whether the item is natural or artificial.
要素二 它是天然的还是人造的
The answer is easy for the wrapper– artificial–
很简单 糖果纸是人造的
and the peel– natural.
香蕉皮是天然的
But what about coffee?
但咖啡呢?
Coffee beans are natural,
咖啡豆是天然的
but brewed coffee is a manufactured product.
但煮好的咖啡是人造品
So coffee could go either way.
所以咖啡可以是天然的 也可以是人造的
We’ll put a question mark for coffee.
我们在咖啡栏填问号
Our last factor will be whether you would put the item in a trash can.
最后一个要素 你是否会把该物品投进垃圾箱
Coffee?
咖啡?
Probably not.
大概不会
A candy wrapper?
糖果纸?
Definitely.
肯定会
And a banana?
香蕉皮?
Probably.
也许会
So now we have three factors on which to compare the three items.
现在三件物品可以通过三个要素进行比对
We don’t have enough information on the second factor, natural or artificial, for coffee.
因为要素二 咖啡是天然的或人造的 我们没有足够信息
So let’s disregard that factor.
所以把它忽略
Sorting, ranking and discarding factors is another think like a lawyer skill.
另一个“像律师一样思考”方法是要素整理 排序 排除
That leaves two factors.
现在剩下两个要素
and on both, the peel is more like the wrapper.
两要素中 香蕉皮更像糖果纸这类物品
Because the peel is more like the wrapper on the two factors.
因为香蕉皮和糖果纸两因素相同 所以它们更像同一类物品
Analogical reasoning dictates that it will be more like the wrapper in the result, too.
类比推理也可得出香蕉皮更像糖果纸的结论
Therefore, the officer should ticket the jogger.
所以警察应给慢跑者处罚单
That, in a nutshell, is how a lawyer would solve a problem like this.
简言之 律师就是这样解决问题
Identify the rule, use precedents resolve ambiguities in the rule,
通过确认规则和使用先例解决规则模凌两可的问题
use analogical reasoning to compare the precedents,
通过类比推理方法
with the current case, and come up with an answer.
在对比先例和现例后提出解决办法
Now, lawyers and most people could solve this problem in their heads in an instant,
律师和多数人都能够轻松地在脑海中解决此类问题
but that’s not the point.
但这不是关键点
The point is this.
重点是
If you have a teacher
如果你有一位老师
who breaks the process of thinking like a lawyer into two discrete steps,
他能将“像律师一样思考”过程分两个独立步骤
you will learn the process much more quickly.
那你将会更快学会这些过程
That’s exactly what we do at Texas A&M.
这就是我们在德州农工大学所做的工作
I’m Professor John F. Murphy,
我是John F. Murphy教授
And, this is the Texas A&M School of Law.
这里是德州农工大学法学院
“香蕉皮”事例问题出自《法律分析:100题精练》一书 该书由Cassandra L. Hill和Katherine T. Vukadin编著
事例经作者准许使用

德州农工法学院 访问 关注我们YouTube频道
搜索: 德州农工法学院

发表评论

译制信息
视频概述

德州农工大学法学院的John F. Murphy教授用一个乱扔香蕉皮是否罚款的案例清楚地讲解了如何像律师一样思考

听录译者

收集自网络

翻译译者

Steve

审核员

审核员BY

视频来源

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L5d2RAWyZs

相关推荐