评论
打印
Dating back at least to the time of Socrates, some early societies decided that certain disputes,
时间至少回溯到苏格拉底时期，一些早期社会在解决纠纷，
such as whether a person committed a particular crime, should be heard by a group of citizens.
比如裁决某人是否犯罪的时候，采用听证制度。
Several centuries later, trial by jury was introduced to England,
几世纪之后，陪审团制度被介绍至英国，
where it became a fundamental feature of the legal system,
并且成为英国法律系统的一个基本特征，
checking the government and involving citizens in decision-making.
以此来监督政府，并让公民参与决定。
Juries decided whether defendants would be tried on crimes,
陪审员决定被告是否违法，
determined whether the accused defendants were guilty, and resolved monetary disputes.
裁决刑事被告是否有罪，还有解决经济争端。
While the American colonies eventually cast off England's rule, its legal tradition of the jury persisted.
美洲殖民地最终放弃了英式规则和它的陪审制度。
The United States Constitution instructed a grand jury to decide whether criminal cases proceeded,
美国宪法规定了大陪审团制度，并由他们决定是否进行刑事起诉，
required a jury to try all crimes, except impeachment, and provided for juries in civil cases as well.
由陪审团来裁决除弹劾以外的刑事案件，同时也为民事法庭配置陪审团。
Yet, in the US today, grand juries often are not convened,
然而，现今的美国法庭经常并不召集大陪审团，
and juries decide less than 4% of criminal cases and less than 1% of civil cases filed in court.
而且他们仅仅裁决不到4%的刑事案件和不到1%的民事案件。
That's at the same time as jury systems in other countries are growing. So what happened in the U.S.?
与此同时别国的陪审团制度却在发展。那么，美国这里发生了什么？
Part of the story lies in how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution.
这一定程度上在于最高法院如何解释宪法。
It's permitted plea bargaining, which now occurs in almost every criminal case.
它允许辩诉交易，这是如今几乎每案都有的。
The way it works is the prosecutor presents the accused with a decision of whether to plead guilty.
它是由公诉人向被告提出是否决定进行有罪辩护。
If they accept the plea, the case won't go in front of a jury,
如果被告同意，则不会在陪审团面前进行审理，
but they'll receive a shorter prison sentence than they'd get if a jury did convict them.
同时他们以此获得较短的刑期，这要比由当庭陪审团决定的刑期短得多。
The risk of a much greater prison sentence after a trial can frighten even an innocent defendant into taking a plea.
上庭后的更长服刑的风险甚至可以迫使一个无辜的人接受有罪辩护。
Between the 19th century and the 21st century,
19至21世纪中，
the proportion of guilty pleas has increased from around 20% to 90%, and the numbers continue to grow.
有罪辩护的比例已经从20%左右增加到90%，并且持续增加着。
The Supreme Court has permitted the use of another procedure that interferes with the jury called summary judgement.
最高法院已经允许了另一种程序来干预陪审制度，它就是即审判决。
Using summary judgement, judges can decide that civil trials are unnecessary if the people who sue have insufficient evidence.
法官以即审判决用来决定一些案件是否必要，如果原告证据不足，则不会开庭。
This is intended only for cases where no reasonable jury would disagree.
这仅仅是为多数法官无异议的案件准备的。
That's a difficult thing to determine,
虽然很难证明，
yet usage of summary judgement has stretched to the point where some would argue it's being abused.
但这种即审判决也已经到了某种被滥用的程度。
For instance, judges grant fully, or in part, over 70% of employers' requests to dismiss employment discrimination cases.
比如，法官全然或部分地驳回70%的雇主，要求撤销其被诉雇佣歧视的案件。
In other cases, both the person who sues and the person who defends forgo their right to go to court,
另外一些案件中，起诉者和被起诉者放弃对簿公堂，
instead resolving their dispute through a professional arbitrator.
而选择通过仲裁人员来解决争端。
These are generally lawyers, professors, or former judges.
仲裁者通常是律师、专家或前任法官。
Arbitration can be a smart decision by both parties to avoid the requirements of a trial in court,
仲裁有可能对双方都是聪明的选择，因为它避免了庭审，
but it's often agreed to unwittingly when people sign contracts like employment applications and consumer agreements.
但是，这样也常导致了有人不情愿地签署协议，比如雇佣申请和消费者协议。
That can become a problem. For example, some arbitrators may be biased towards the companies that give them cases.
这就可能是一个问题。举例说，有些仲裁者可能偏袒给他们仲裁机会的公司。
These are just some of the ways in which juries have disappeared.
这些只是几种不需要陪审团的情况。
But could the disappearance of juries be a good thing?
但是陪审制度的消亡会是一件好事吗？
Well, juries aren't perfect. They're costly, time-consuming, and may make errors.
这样讲吧，这个制度本身也不完美。它花费高、耗时、失误众多。
And they're not always necessary, like when people can simply agree to settle their disputes.
并且不总是有必要，就像双方本来就有机会和解的情况。
But juries have their advantages.
可是，陪审团也有自己的优势。
When properly selected, jurors are more representative of the general population
选择得当的时候，陪审员们代表大众，
and don't have the same incentives as prosecutors, legislators, or judges seeking reelection or promotion.
他们并没有检方、立法委员或者法官那种寻求连任或升职的动因。
The founders of the United States trusted in the wisdom of impartial groups of citizens
美国的建立者们信赖于以公民的公正智慧，
to check the power of all three branches of government.
来检阅三权分立的政府职能。
And the jury trial itself has given ordinary citizens a central role in upholding the social fabric.
并且陪审制度使得普通公民成为维系社会关系的主角。
So will the jury system in the U.S. survive into the future?
那么美国的陪审制度会在将来继续存在吗？
