陪審團永遠不會知道的那些事：英語精讀講義

On a jury, you know your options: guilty or not.

在陪審團中，你知道你的選項：有罪或無罪。

But there's another choice that neither the judge nor the lawyers will tell you,

但還有一個選擇，法官和律師都不會告訴你，

often because they're not allowed to,

通常是因為他們不被允許說，

and also because it might be better if you don't know.

也因為你不知道可能更好。

This video will tell you that third choice,

這部影片將告訴你那第三個選擇，

but be warned, simply watching may prevent you from ever serving on a jury.

但請注意，僅僅觀看這部影片可能就會讓你永遠無法在陪審團任職。

So this is your last chance to hit the pause button

所以這是你按下暫停鍵的最後機會，

before you learn about jury nullification,

在你了解「陪審團否決權」之前，

when the defendant is 100% beyond a reasonable doubt guilty, 文化背景

也就是當被告毫無合理疑點地百分之百有罪時，

but the jurors also think he shouldn't be punished.

但陪審員們也認為他不該受到懲罰。

The jury can nullify the law and let him go free.

陪審團可以否決法律並讓他重獲自由。

But before you're on your next jury and yell null booyah at the judge,

但在你下次參加陪審團並向法官大喊「否決萬歲」之前，

you should know that just talking about jury nullification in the wrong circumstances can get you arrested. 文法

你應該知道，僅僅在不適當的環境下討論陪審團否決權就可能讓你被捕。

Though a video such as this one simply acknowledging the existence of jury nullification

雖然像這部影片這樣只是承認陪審團否決權的存在，

and in no way advocating it is totally okay.

並且絕不提倡它的影片是完全可以的。

And while we're at it, CGP Grey isn't a lawyer, 慣用語

順帶一提，CGP Grey 不是律師，

that's not legal advice, it's meant for entertainment purposes only.

這不是法律建議，僅供娛樂參考。

Seriously, guy, don't do anything in a court of law based on what an internet video told you,

說真的，老兄，千萬別根據網路影片裡說的話在法庭上採取行動，

no joke.

這可不是開玩笑。

So why can't you do this?

那麼為什麼你不能這樣做呢？

It's because nullification isn't in the law,

這是因為否決權並沒有寫進法律，

but exists as a logical consequence of two other laws. 片語搭配

而是作為其他兩條法律的邏輯結果存在的。

First, the juries can't be punished for a wrong decision,

首先，陪審團不能因為錯誤的決定而受到懲罰，

no matter what the witnesses, DNA evidence, or video proof show. 文法

無論證人、DNA證據或影片證據顯示了什麼。

That's the point of a jury, to be the final decider.

這就是陪審團的意義，成為最終的決策者。

And second, when a defendant is found not guilty,

其次，當一名被告被判無罪時，

that defendant can't be tried again for the same crime. 文化背景

該被告不能因同一罪行再次受審。

So there are only two stated options, guilty or not,

所以明面上的選項只有兩個：有罪或無罪，

it's just that jury nullification is when the words of the jurors don't match their thoughts, 文化背景

只不過陪審團否決權是指陪審員的言詞與內心想法不一致時的情況，

for which they can't be punished

他們不會因此受到懲罰，

and their not guilty decision can't be changed.

並且他們的無罪決定也無法被更改。

These laws are necessary for juries to exist within a fair system,

這些法律是陪審團在公平系統中存在所必需的，

but the logical consequence is contentious.

但其邏輯後果卻存在爭議。

Lawyers and judges argue about jury nullification like physicists argue about quantum mechanics. 表達脈絡

律師和法官們對陪審團否決權的爭論，就像物理學家們對量子力學的爭論一樣。

Both are difficult to observe

兩者都難以觀察，

and the interpretation of both has a huge philosophical ramification for the subject as a whole.

並且對兩者的解釋都會對其整個學科產生巨大的哲學影響。

Is jury nullification the righteous will of the people

陪審團否決權到底是人民的正義意志，

or an anarchy of 12

還是12個人的無政府狀態，

or just how citizens judge their laws?

亦或是公民評判其法律的方式？

The go-to example in favor of nullification is the Fugitive Slave Law, 講解

支持否決權的首選例子是《逃奴法》，

when Northern juries refused to convict escaped slaves and set them free.

當時北方的陪審團拒絕將被定罪的逃跑黑奴判刑並釋放了他們。

Can't argue with that, 語氣意圖

這點無可反駁，

but the anarchy side is Southern juries refusing to convict lynch mobs,

但無政府狀態的一面是南方陪審團拒絕給私刑暴民定罪，

not humanity at its best.

這可不是人類最好的一面。

But both of these are juries nullifying the law.

但這兩個例子都是陪審團在否決法律。

And also, juries have two options for where their thoughts may differ from their words.

此外，陪審團的思想與言詞可能有兩種不一致的情況。

Jury nullification usually refers to the non-guilty version,

陪審團否決權通常指的是「判決無罪」的版本，

but juries can convict without evidence just as easily as they can acquit in spite of it. 講解

但陪審團在沒有證據的情況下定罪，同樣與他們無視證據而宣告無罪一樣容易。

This is jury nullification too,

這也是陪審團否決權，

and the jurors are protected by the first rule,

且陪審員受第一條規則的保護，

though the second doesn't apply

儘管第二條規則並不適用，

and judges do have the power to overrule a guilty verdict 講解

而且法官確實有權推翻有罪判決，

if they think the jurors aren't the best

如果他們認為陪審員的狀態不佳，

and of course a guilty defendant can appeal at least for a little while,

當然，被判有罪的被告至少在一段時間內可以提出上訴，

which makes the guilty form of jury nullification weaker than the not guilty kind.

這使得有罪形式的陪審團否決權比無罪形式的要弱。

Cold comfort though. 慣用語

儘管這並不能帶來多少安慰。

Given the possibility of jurors who might ignore the law as written, 講解

考慮到陪審員可能會無視成文法律，

it's not surprising when picking jurors for a trial,

那麼在為審判挑選陪審員時也就不足為奇了，

lawyers whose existence is dependent on an orderly society,

那些依賴有序社會而存在的律師們，

will ask about nullification usually in the slightly roundabout way, 用詞

通常會以一種稍微迂迴的方式詢問關於否決權的問題，

do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law? 講解

你是否有任何信仰，可能會阻止你嚴格根據法律做出決定？

If after learning about jury nullification,

如果在了解了陪審團否決權之後，

you think it's a good idea, answer yes and you'll be rejected,

你覺得這是個好主意，回答「是」，你就會被拒絕，

but answer no with the intent to get on the jury to nullify 片語搭配

但如果回答「否」，而意圖是進入陪審團行使否決權，

and you've just committed perjury, 文化背景

你剛剛就犯了偽證罪，

technically a federal crime,

嚴格來說是一項聯邦罪行，

which makes the optimal strategy once on a jury to zip it. 慣用語

這使得一旦成為陪審員，最佳策略就是閉嘴。

But this introduces a problem for jurors who intend to nullify.

但這也給那些打算行使否決權的陪審員帶來了一個問題。

Telling the other 11 angry men about your position is risky,

把你的立場告訴其他11個怒漢是有風險的，

which makes nullification as a tool for fixing unjust laws nationwide problematic.

這使得在全國範圍內將否決權作為修正不公正法律的工具變得有問題。

Not to mention about 95% of criminal charges in the United States never make it to trial 講解

更不用說美國大約95%的刑事指控根本不會進入審判階段，

and rather end in a plea bargain, 文化背景

而是以認罪協商告終，

but that's a story for another time. 表達脈絡

但那是另一個故事了。

The only question about jury nullification that may matter in the end is if jurors should be told about it.

最終可能唯一重要的關於陪審團否決權的問題是，是否應該告訴陪審員這件事。

And the courts are near universal in their decision,

法院在他們的決定上幾乎是一致的：

no way. 語氣意圖

絕對不行。

Which, again, might seem self-interested.

這同樣可能看起來是出於私心。

Courts do depend on the law,

法院確實依賴於法律，

but there's evidence that telling jurors about nullification changes the way they vote

但有證據表明，告訴陪審員關於否決權的事情會改變他們投票的方式，

by making evidence less relevant to them, 文法

因為這讓證據對他們來說變得不那麼重要，

which isn't surprising, that's what nullification is.

這並不奇怪，畢竟這就是否決權的本質。

But mock trials also show sympathetic defendants get more non-guilty verdicts 用詞

但模擬法庭也顯示，能引起同情的被告會得到更多的無罪判決，

and unsympathetic defendants get more guilty verdicts

而引起反感的被告則會得到更多的有罪判決，

in front of jurors who were explicitly told about nullification compared to those who weren't, 文法

與未被明確告知否決權的陪審員相比，那些被明確告知的陪審員面前，

which sounds bad,

這聽起來很糟糕，

but it's also easy to imagine situations where jurors blindly following the law would be terribly unjust. 文法

但也很容易想像這樣一些情況：陪審員盲目遵守法律會造成極大的不公。

In the end, righteous will of the people or anarchy or citizen lawmaking,

最終，是人民的正義意志，還是無政府狀態，或者是公民立法，

the system leaves you to decide. 片語搭配

這個系統讓你自己來決定。

But as long as courts are fair, they require these rules. 文法

但只要法院是公平的，它們就需要這些規則。

So jury nullification will always be with us. 慣用語

因此，陪審團否決權將永遠與我們同在。