ADM-201 dump PMP dumps pdf SSCP exam materials CBAP exam sample questions

美国的陪审团制度怎么了 – 译学馆
未登陆,请登陆后再发表信息
最新评论 (0)
播放视频

美国的陪审团制度怎么了

What happened to trial by jury? - Suja A. Thomas

点亮世界
Light up the world
陪审团制度最早可以追溯到苏格拉底那个年代
Dating back at least to the time of Socrates,
一些早期的社会认定对某些争议
some early societies decided that certain disputes,
诸如一个人是否犯了特别的罪刑
such as whether a person committed a particular crime,
应由公民进行听证
should be heard by a group of citizens.
几个世纪后 陪审团制度被引进到了英国
Several centuries later, trial by jury was introduced to England,
在那里 这一制度成为法律体系的基本特征
where it became a fundamental feature of the legal system,
监督政府和公民参与决策
checking the government and involving citizens in decision-making.
陪审团可以决定被告是否以犯罪的名义接受审判
Juries decided whether defendants would be tried on crimes,
决定被告是否有罪
determined whether the accused defendants were guilty,
并解决货币争端
and resolved monetary disputes.
当美国殖民地最终摆脱英国的统治时
While the American colonies eventually cast off England’s rule,
其关于陪审团的法律传统却继承了下来
its legal tradition of the jury persisted.
美国宪法规定大陪审团
The United States Constitution instructed a grand jury
决定刑事案件是否进行
to decide whether criminal cases proceeded,
要求陪审团审判除弹劾外所有犯罪案件
required a jury to try all crimes, except impeachment,
而且在民事案件中也有陪审团参与
and provided for juries in civil cases as well.
然而 今天的美国 并不经常召集大陪审团
Yet, in the US today, grand juries often are not convened,
且陪审团在法庭上只审判了低于百分之四的刑事案件
and juries decide less than 4% of criminal cases
和不到百分之一的民事案件
and less than 1% of civil cases filed in court.
与此同时 陪审团制度却在别的国家发展起来了
That’s at the same time as jury systems in other countries are growing.
那么 美国究竟发生了什么事呢
So what happened in the U.S.?
这事儿差不多取决于最高法院如何解释宪法
Part of the story lies in how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution.
现在 被允许的控辩交易
It’s permitted plea bargaining,
几乎发生在所有的刑事案件中
which now occurs in almost every criminal case.
这种控辩交易在检察官出席控告
The way it works is the prosecutor presents the accused
并做出被告是否认罪的决定时有效
with a decision of whether to plead guilty.
若他们认罪 此案件将不会呈现在陪审团面前
If they accept the plea, the case won’t go in front of a jury,
而且相较于陪审团的审判
but they’ll receive a shorter prison sentence
他们会被判处更短的刑期
than they’d get if a jury did convict them.
陪审团审判后加重刑罚的风险
The risk of a much greater prison sentence after a trial
甚至能让一个无辜的被告感到害怕而接受请求
can frighten even an innocent defendant into taking a plea.
在十九和二十一世纪期间
Between the 19th century and the 21st century,
有罪辩护的比例从百分之二十左右上升到百分之九十
the proportion of guilty pleas has increased from around 20% to 90%,
而且数量还在上升
and the numbers continue to grow.
最高法院允许使用另一套
The Supreme Court has permitted the use of another procedure
被称作即决审判的程序
that interferes with the jury
来干涉陪审团
called summary judgement.
启动即决审判时 如果控方证据不足
Using summary judgement, judges can decide that civil trials are unnecessary
法官可以决定不进行民事审判
if the people who sue have insufficient evidence.
这种做法只有在陪审团都同意的情况下才启用
This is intended only for cases where no reasonable jury would disagree.
这件事情很难决定
That’s a difficult thing to determine,
现在即决审判的使用已经到了
yet usage of summary judgement has stretched to the point
被一些人认为是滥用的地步
where some would argue it’s being abused.
举例来说 当法官充分授权或部分授权时
For instance, judges grant fully, or in part,
有超过百分之七十的雇主会要求
over 70% of employers’ requests
撤销就业歧视案件
to dismiss employment discrimination cases.
在其他一些案件中 原被告双方
In other cases, both the person who sues and the person who defends
会放弃打官司
forgo their right to go to court,
取而代之的是用仲裁的方式来解决争端
instead resolving their dispute through a professional arbitrator.
这些人一般都是律师 教授 或曾经做过法官
These are generally lawyers, professors, or former judges.
相对于法庭上的审判诉求
Arbitration can be a smart decision by both parties
仲裁对双方来说都是明智之举
to avoid the requirements of a trial in court,
但它经常是在人们签订诸如
but it’s often agreed to unwittingly when people sign contracts
就职申请和客户同意书时无意间达成的
like employment applications and consumer agreements.
那么问题来了
That can become a problem.
比如 一些仲裁员可能会偏向
For example, some arbitrators may be biased
那些主动来找他们的公司
towards the companies that give them cases.
这些只是陪审团缺席审判的部分情形
These are just some of the ways in which juries have disappeared.
但陪审团的缺失真的好吗
But could the disappearance of juries be a good thing?
陪审团不够专业
Well, juries aren’t perfect.
花费高昂
They’re costly,
耗费时间
time-consuming,
还可能会出错
and may make errors.
而且当人们能够很容易地解决争端时
And they’re not always necessary,
陪审团也没有存在的必要
like when people can simply agree to settle their disputes.
但陪审团也有自身的优势
But juries have their advantages.
如果选的合适
When properly selected,
陪审员在一般民众中更具代表性
jurors are more representative of the general population
而且不像检察官那样有报酬
and don’t have the same incentives as prosecutors,
也不像立法者
legislators,
或法官
or judges
寻求改选或晋升
seeking reelection or promotion.
美国的缔造者信任
The founders of the United States trusted in the wisdom
无私的公民们的学识
of impartial groups of citizens
能够监督政府三权分立
to check the power of all three branches of government.
陪审团自身已经给普通公民
And the jury trial itself has given ordinary citizens
一种支撑社会架构核心作用的形象
a central role in upholding the social fabric.
未来美国的陪审团制度会保留下来吗
So will the jury system in the U.S. survive into the future?

发表评论

译制信息
视频概述

相信大家都听说过美国的陪审团制度吧,至少曾经在电影中看到过类似的情节。也许以后就看不到了,至少在美国电影里看不到了吧,开个玩笑。看看本视频,增加些了解吧。

听录译者

收集自网络

翻译译者

启点—飞雪群山

审核员

与光同尘

视频来源

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVoYFYxGJPg

相关推荐