评论
打印
In Science in the Soul I have a chapter on reasonable doubt and it’s about, of course, the phrase.
在Science in the Soul一书中 有一章我专门描述了合理怀疑 内容就是字面意思
“Reasonable doubt” comes up in courts of law where juries are told that they must convict somebody,
“合理怀疑”源自法院 指的是只有在杀手等被排除有罪的合理怀疑后
say a murder, only if it’s beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty.
法官们才不得不认定这个人有罪
And that sounds all very good, it should be beyond reasonable doubt,
听起来还不错 应该是排除合理怀疑
but when you think about the fact that—I think about courtroom dramas, which are so popular on television, for example,
但是想一下事实 我觉得法庭剧 比如 电视上经常播
and I suspect that this accurately portrays something like what goes on real courtrooms,
我怀疑它准确地描绘了现实生活中法庭上真正发生的事
and I’ve certainly been on three juries myself, there is a note of suspense in the court when the jury comes back, which way will it go?
我自己就参加过陪审团 法庭上会有中场暂停 陪审团回来后 结果会是什么样？
Will it be guilty or not guilty?
是有罪还是无罪？
And then if they say “not guilty,” certain people heave a great sigh of relief.
如果他们说“无罪” 会有一批人松口气
If they say guilty other people do.
如果说有罪 另一批人会松口气
So there is a lot of doubt in the courtroom among people who have sat through the entire trial,
所以审判自始至终都在的人会有很多疑问
the judge for example, the lawyers, the audience sat through the entire trial, as the jury has.
比如说法官 律师 从头待到尾的听众 都跟陪审团一样心怀疑问
So if the jury comes in and brings in a verdict that is beyond reasonable doubt, everybody in the court should know that.
如果陪审团返场 带来排除合理怀疑的裁定 那么在场的每个人都应该知道
If it’s beyond reasonable doubt there can be no doubt at which way the jury will jump.
如果是排除合理怀疑 那么陪审团会如何决定就毫无疑问了
And yet when the jury do give their verdict, how can that be if it’s beyond reasonable doubt?
但是当陪审团给出裁定的时候 如果真的是排除合理怀疑 那怎么可能会那样呢？
Imagine the following experiment: suppose that you had two juries listening to the same evidence and the two juries are not allowed to talk to each other,
想象一下这个实验：假设有两个陪审团 听着同样的证据 而且两个陪审团不得互相交流
they're sent off onto separate jury rooms and they come up with their own separate verdicts,
他们被派到不同的陪审团房间里 决定各自的裁决
who would bet on the juries coming back with the same verdict every single time?
谁敢说两个陪审团各自回来时会得出同样的裁定呢？
Virtually nobody would.
没人敢
If you think about the O.J. Simpson trial, for example, would anybody bet on another jury coming up with the same verdict?
比如 想一下O.J.辛普森的审判 有人敢赌另一个陪审团也会做出同样的裁定吗？
And yet unless you can bet, unless you can say “yes, they would come up with the same verdict,”
除非你敢赌 除非你说“是的 他们会得出同样的裁定”
you cannot really take the phrase beyond reasonable doubt seriously.
否则你根本就没有严肃对待排除合理怀疑
Now I'm not suggesting that we should have two juries in every trial,
我不是说每场审判都应该有两个陪审团
I'm just pointing out that the phrase beyond reasonable doubt doesn't actually mean what it says.
我只是说 排除合理怀疑实际并不是它的字面意思
