评论
打印
Hi I’m Craig and this is Crash Course Government and Politics,
大家好，我是克雷格，这里是政府与政治速成班，
and today we’re going to try to define one of the trickiest terms in government and in the Constitution, and that is certiorari.
今天我们将尝试定义政府和宪法中最棘手的术语之一，即签发调卷令。
No, we've already defined that.
不，我们已经定义过了。
Due process of law.
法律正当程序。
On the most basic level, due process is what it means to have a fair trial,
在最基本的层面上，正当程序意味着公平审判，
but, as we’ll see, it’s a lot more than what goes on in the courtroom.
但是，正如我们将看到的，它比法庭上发生的事情要多得多。
Due process can refer to any type of legal action,
正当程序可以指任何类型的法律行为，
but we’re mostly concerned with criminal procedure here, mainly because it’s always the government that brings criminal charges.
但我们在这里主要关注的是刑事诉讼，主要是因为政府总是带来刑事指控。
Last time, we looked at search warrants and probable cause, and it’s fair to say that this is the beginning of due process,
上次，我们学习了搜查令和可能的原因，可以说这是正当程序的开始，
but search and seizure is the Fourth Amendment;
但是搜查和扣押是第四修正案；
in this episode we’re more concerned with amendments Five and Six.
在这节课中，我们更关注第五和第六修正案。
And, most important, we’ll be explaining some of the aspects of the legal system that you've probably heard if you’ve ever watched a cop show.
最重要的是，我们将解释警匪片中出现过的法律体系的一些方面。
Before we move forward, let's look at the Fourteenth Amendment.
继续往下说之前，让我们先看看第十四条修正案。
You’ll remember from episode 23 that the civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights initially applied only to the federal government;
你们应该还记得在第23集《权利法案》中规定的公民自由最初只适用于联邦政府；
state governments could violate them until the cows came home, which in 1789 was how they measured time.
各州政府在牛回家之前都可以违反这些规定，1789年他们就是这样计算时间的。
This changed with the Fourteenth Amendment, which allowed the Court to incorporate the rights against the states over time.
随着第十四条修正案的通过，这种情况发生了变化，该修正案允许法院在一段时间内纳入针对各州的权利。
This is especially important with criminal procedural rights and liberties because most of the time criminal cases are brought by state governments.
这对于刑事诉讼权利和自由尤其重要，因为大多数刑事案件是由州政府提起的。
So the part of the Fourteenth Amendment that applies here is
所以适用于此的第十四条修正案的部分是:
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
“任何州不得制定或执行任何削弱合众国公民的特权或豁免的法律；
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
未经正当法律程序，任何国家不得剥夺任何人的生命、自由或财产；
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
也不否认其管辖范围内的任何人受到法律的平等保护。”
You can see that it refers directly to states and that it says they can’t deprive person of life -- kill them – liberty – lock them up – or property – fine them and take away their stuff, without due process of law.
可以看出，修正案指的是政府不能在没有正当法律程序剥夺人的生命即杀人，或剥夺自由，即关到监狱，或剥夺财产，即罚款或收缴物品。
But what does it mean?
但这意味着什么呢?
Serious fans of jurisprudence – and you know who you are – know that there are two concepts of due process floating around out there.
法理学的忠实粉丝——你知道你是谁——知道有两个关于正当程序的概念。
The first is substantive due process, which is a blanket prohibition on government infringing on fundamental liberties.
第一个是实质性的正当程序，即全面禁止政府侵犯基本自由。
If you think that this is kind of vague, you’re not alone;
不是你一个人觉得这有些模糊；
the courts generally don’t like to uphold claims based on substantive due process because then they’d have to define what it actually means.
法院通常不喜欢支持基于实质正当程序的主张，因为那样他们就必须定义其实际含义。
Procedural due process, on the other hand, is a different story.
另一方面，程序性正当程序则是另一回事。
Under this doctrine, the court looks at whether the government acted properly in applying its power.
根据这一原则，法院将审查政府在行使其权力时是否采取了适当行动。
Court decisions established procedural limitations on law enforcement and adjudication.
法院的判决对执法和裁决规定了程序上的限制。
If the government followed these procedural rules, then in general the courts will say that they didn’t violate your due process rights.
如果政府遵循这些程序规则，那么一般来说法院会说他们没有侵犯你的正当程序权利。
But what procedures do they have to follow, and where do they come from?
但是他们必须遵循什么程序，他们从哪里来?
When it comes to Due Process, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does most of the heavy lifting.
宪法第五修正案能体现大部分正当程序。
Here’s what it says:
如下：
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
“任何人不得被要求对资本负责，或其他臭名昭著的罪行，
unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,
除非经大陪审团提出或起诉，
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces,
除非在陆上或海上发生的案件，
or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
或是在战争或者公共危险中服现役的民兵；
nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
人所犯的一切罪，不可使他两次冒生命危险；
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
在任何刑事案件中，未经正当法律程序，不得强迫作不利于自己的证人，不得剥夺生命、自由或财产；
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
未经合理补偿，不得将私有财产用于公共用途。”
Notice that the second to last clause mentions due process of law in language similar to what you would find in the 14th amendment –
请注意，倒数第二项条款中提到的正当法律程序的语言与你在第十四条修正案中看到的语言相似,
imagine that – and the rest of the Amendment basically explains a lot of what due process is.
想象一下,修正案的其余部分基本上解释了什么是正当程序。
Let's go to the Thought Bubble.
让我们进入“思想泡泡”。
The first clause basically says that if you are charged with a crime, you are entitled to a grand jury that must look at the evidence and decide that there is enough to bring you to trial.
第一个条款基本上是说，如果你被控犯罪，你有权得到一个大陪审团，这个陪审团必须查看证据，并决定有足够的证据将你送上法庭。
If the grand jury decides that there is enough evidence, they issue an indictment,
如果大陪审团认为有足够的证据，他们会提出起诉，
and this means that, unless you make a plea deal, you will have a trial – which almost never happens because people usually make plea deals.
这意味着，除非达成认罪协议，否则将面临审判。审判几乎从未发生过，因为人们通常会达成认罪协议。
We don't have to talk much about cases in the land or naval forces;
我们不需要过多地讨论陆军或海军的案例；
this just means that soldiers and sailors who commit crimes get tried in military courts,
这只是意味着犯罪的士兵和水手会在军事法庭受审，
which becomes quite important when you are talking about potential terrorists, but that’s for another day.
这在谈论潜在的恐怖分子时非常重要，但那是另一天的事了。
The second protection this Amendment gives us is against double jeopardy – not the good Alex Trebek kind –
这项修正案给予我们的第二项保护是防止双重危险——不是像Alex Trebek那样——
the bad kind where the state tries you for a crime, loses its case and then decides to try you again for the exact same crime.
国家审判你的罪行，败诉后又决定以同样的罪名再次审判你。
What is “Unfair”?
什么是“不公平”？
Legal types like to say that the government only gets one bite at the apple, because legal types love fruit.
法律类型喜欢说政府只咬一口苹果，因为法律类型喜欢水果。
In case you are wondering, the double jeopardy clause only applies to convictions;
如果你想知道，双重危险条款只适用于定罪；
if there is a mistrial in your case and as a result you are neither convicted nor acquitted, the state can bring you to trial again.
如果你的案件审判无效，结果你既没有被定罪也没有被无罪释放，那么国家可以再次对你进行审判。
The next clause, saying that you can’t be compelled to be a witness against yourself, is the most important one, at least in the way we think about due process.
下一个条款内容是不能被强迫做不利于你自己的证人，这是最重要的一条，至少在我们思考正当程序的方式中是这样。
This is the protection against self-incrimination, and it’s what we mean when we say that someone “pleads the Fifth.”
我们说“宪法修正案第五条特权”，意思是申请防止自证其罪的保护。
The idea that you can’t be compelled to confess your own guilt is the basis of the famous first sentence in every arrest you ever see on TV:
你不能被迫承认自己的罪行，这是你在电视上看到的每一次逮捕中著名的第一句话的基础:
“You have the right to remain silent, anything you say may be used against you in a court of law.”
“你有权保持沉默,但是你所说的每句话将成为呈堂证供。
You'll remember, that this warning comes from the 1966 case Miranda v. Arizona.
你们应该记得，这个警告来自1966年米兰达诉亚利桑那州一案。
The last clause in the 5th Amendment, is the “just compensation” clause
宪法第五修正案的最后一条是“公正赔偿”条款，
and it only means that if the state takes away your property, say to build a freeway through your front yard, they can do it but they have to pay you for it.
它只意味着如果州政府拿走你的财产，比如在你的前院修建一条高速公路，那么可以这么做的前提是必须为此付钱。
This is the basis of what’s called eminent domain, which is fascinating but I don’t have time to go into it here.
这就是所谓的国家征用权的基础，这很有趣，但我没有时间在这里细讲。
I'm a busy man.
我很忙。
Thanks, Thought Bubble.
谢谢，思想泡泡。
So you can see that the 5th amendment goes a long way toward protecting us from the state using its power to put us in jail arbitrarily.
所以你可以看到，宪法第五修正案在保护我们免受国家滥用权力任意监禁方面大有作为。
Just think for a minute about what the state could do to force confessions
只要花一分钟想想，国家可以做些什么来迫使你招供，
or to keep bringing you to trial until they get a conviction, and you can see how important these rights are.
或者继续把你送上法庭，直到他们被定罪，你就会明白这些权利有多么重要。
The fear that the state would use its legal muscle to take away our liberties was so great, that the writers of the Bill of Rights needed two amendments to cover it all –
人们担心国家会动用法律力量剥夺我们的自由，这种担心是如此强烈，以至于《权利法案》的起草者需要两项修正案来涵盖这一切——
three if you count the 7th amendment which guarantees the right to a jury trial.
如果算上保证陪审团审判权利的《第七修正案》，就需要三项修正案。
If the Fifth Amendment provides some general procedural protections, then the Sixth Amendment is more specific.
如果第五修正案提供了一些一般性的程序保护，那么第六修正案就更具体了。
Here’s what it says:
下面是内容：
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
“在一切刑事诉讼中，被告应有权由所犯罪行的州和地区、以前由法律确定的地区的公正陪审团迅速公开审判，并有权获知指控的性质和原因；
to be confronted with the witnesses against him;
与控告他的证人当面对质；
to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,
有取得对他有利的证人的强制程序，
and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
并有辩护律师的协助。”
So this explains what a fair trial looks like.
这就解释了什么是公平审判。
It must be speedy, which most states define in their constitutions
这一过程很迅速，这是大多数州在其宪法中所规定的，
but usually means that you can be held for 45 days before you have to have a trial,
但通常意味着你可以被拘留45天，然后你必须接受审判，
unless you waive this right in order to prepare a stronger defense.
除非你放弃这一权利，以便准备更有力的辩护。
The trial should be public – no royal courts or star chambers – because transparency is supposed to make them work better.
审判应该是公开的——没有皇家法庭或明星法庭——因为透明应该让它们更好地发挥作用。
You have the right to a jury of your peers – not a jury of policemen or government officials or people who are basically likely to convict you – although again you can waive your right to a jury.
你有权让你的同伴组成陪审团，而不是由警察或政府官员组成的陪审团，也不是那些有可能给你定罪的人组成的陪审团。
And the trial is supposed to be where you committed the crime, although this doesn’t always apply exactly.
审判应该在你犯罪的地方进行，尽管这并不总是适用。
You have the right to know what you are charged with – which makes total sense
你有权知道你被指控的罪名，这是完全有道理的，
because if you didn’t it would be pretty hard to put up a good defense, and you must be able to cross examine the witnesses brought against you.
因为如果你不这样做的话，你就很难做出一个好的辩护，你们也要审问那控告你们的人。
Probably most important, you have the right to an attorney,
也许最重要的是，你有权请律师，
although according to the case Gideon v. Wainwright, this only applies in felony cases, which I suppose makes sense
尽管根据吉迪恩诉温赖特案，这只适用于重罪案件，我想这是有道理的，
because these are the ones that are likely, if you lose, to result in loss of liberty or even life.
因为这些案件，如果你输了，很可能会失去自由甚至是生命。
Because the legal process, as I hope you’re beginning to see, is kind of complicated, you really, really need a lawyer if you're ever gonna get arrested and charged with a crime.
因为法律程序，就像我希望你们开始看到的，有点复杂，如果你要被逮捕并被指控犯罪，你真的真的需要一个律师。
That phrase, the right to an attorney, is also part of the Miranda warning,
这句话，律师的权利，也是米兰达警告的一部分，
so this seems like a good place to try to explain the Miranda case.
所以这似乎是一个解释米兰达案例的好地方。
I’ll try to be brief.
我会尽量精简。
Stan made that pun.
斯坦说了个双关语。
Terrible.
糟糕。
Miranda was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and rape after being identified in a police line up.
米兰达因涉嫌绑架和强奸而被警方逮捕。
The police questioned him for two hours at the end of which he confessed to the crime.
警察盘问了他两个小时，最后他供认了罪行。
He was never told about his due process rights,
他从来没有被告知他应有的诉讼权利，
specifically the protection against self-incrimination, which is what he did in his confession.
特别是保护自己免受自证其罪，这是他在供词中所做的。
The confession was the main evidence used to convict him, and Miranda was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.
供认是定罪的主要证据，米兰达被判处20-30年监禁。
He appealed – well, his lawyers did – claiming that his 5th amendment rights were violated.
他上诉了——好吧，他的律师上诉了——声称其第五修正案权利被侵犯了。
The court agreed and they went a bit further, ruling that you don’t really have due process protections unless you know about them.
法院同意了，他们更进一步，裁定除非认识他们，否则没有真正的正当程序保护。
This is why the police, when they arrest you, have to tell you about your right to remain silent –
这就是为什么警察在逮捕你的时候，必须告诉你保持沉默的权利，
so you don’t incriminate yourself – and your right to an attorney, provided by the state
这样你就不会把自己牵连进去——还有你请律师的权利，
if you can’t afford one, again because if you have been arrested you're gonna need one.
如果你付不起律师的费用，州会给你提供律师的权利，因为如果你被捕了，你就需要律师。
If you are going to take away one thing from this case, don't make it my wallet cause that will get you arrested.
如果你想从这个案子里拿走一样东西，别拿我的钱包，那样会让你被捕的。
It should be this:
应该是这样的：
If the police take you into custody or even want to ask you a few questions, you should ask them if you are under arrest.
如果警察拘留你，甚至想问你几个问题，你应该问他们你是否被逮捕了。
If they say no, then you can walk away from them.
如果他们说没有，那么你可以离开他们。
If they say yes, the very next thing you should say is, I’d like to speak with a lawyer, and don’t say anything else to them until you have a lawyer there.
如果他们同意了，接下来你应该说的是，我想和律师谈谈，在你有律师之前不要对他们说任何其他事情。
Well, you might be able to ask for coffee.
好吧，你也许可以要杯咖啡。
The good cop might get it for you.
善良的警察会帮你拿的。
The bad cop might throw it in your face.
坏警察或许会把咖啡扔到你脸上。
So maybe don't ask for coffee.
所以或许最好不要点咖啡。
This may seem silly, especially if you haven’t done anything wrong but it’s important to keep the police acting the way they are supposed to act.
这可能看起来很傻，尤其是如果你没有做错什么，但重要的是要让警察按照他们应该做的方式行事。
Court cases like Miranda and Gideon help to define how agents of the state, in this case law enforcement and judicial officers must act so that they don’t unjustly infringe on our liberties.
米兰达和吉迪恩这样的法庭案件帮助我们定义了国家的特工，在这种情况下，执法人员和司法人员必须采取行动，使他们不公正地侵犯我们的自由。
In the case of trials, our fundamental liberty – not being in jail – and maybe even our lives are at stake.
在审判中，我们的基本自由——不是在监狱里——甚至我们的生命都处于危险之中。
Yes it’s true that sometimes guilty people go free because the police or courts don’t follow the rules scrupulously, and that can be a bummer.
是的，有时犯罪的人逍遥法外是真的，因为警察或法院不严格遵守规则，这可能会让人失望。
But when you consider the alternative, a government with the power to lock you up whenever they feel like it, juries that are biased in favor of conviction,
但当你考虑另一种选择时，一个有权随时把你关起来的政府，一个偏袒信念的陪审团，
and a system where the state can bring you to trial again and again until they get a conviction,
还有国家可以一直进行审判直到定罪的制度，
I think you’ll probably agree that it’s better to have these procedural protections than not to have them.
我想你可能会同意，有这些程序性保护比没有要好。
Thanks for watching.
谢谢收看。
See you next time.
下次见。
Crash Course Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.
《政府与政治速成班》是与PBS数字工作室合作制作的。
Support for Crash Course US Government comes from Voqal.
对美国政府速成班的支持来自Voqal。
Voqal supports non-profits that use technology and media to advance social equity.
Voqal支持使用技术和媒体促进社会公平的非营利组织。
Learn more about their mission and initiatives at voqal.org.
在voqal.org上了解更多关于他们的使命和计划。
Crash Course was made with the help of these procedural protectors.
速成班是在这些程序保护者的帮助下进行的。
Thanks for watching.
感谢收看。
