陪审团的两种形式

独秀文译青年

【中文标题】陪审团的两种形式
【原文标题】Two Types of Juries
【正文】
Cursed, reviled, blessed, or praised, the Jury has stoodfirm for seven hundred years. So firmly did our forefathers uphold the jurythat we find the right to Jury trial anchored in ourfederal and state constitutions.
七百年来，无论遭受诅咒谩骂，还是收到夸奖褒扬，陪审团依然屹立不倒、长期存在。我们的祖先如此拥护这一制度，以至于我们在联邦宪法和各州宪法里都可以找到陪审团审案的权力。


There are two types of juries. Thefirst, the petit jury is used in both civil and criminal cases. In civil casesits task is generally to determine liability to pay money damages. In criminalcases its task is to determine punishable guilt, and it usually does so with a minimum of criticism. There its position as a bulwark ofliberty, a protector against executive oppression, and a mode oflessening the rigors of too strict legislation is secure. In England, wherethe use of the civil jury has been greatly reduced by legislation, the criminaljury remains in its traditional form. It is a noteworthy fact, however, thatthe jury is not now and has never been required to be used in equity cases.
陪审团有两种形式。小陪审团应用于民事案件和刑事案件。在民事案件里，它的任务一般是依责任程度的不同而裁定相应的损害赔偿金。在刑事案件里它的作用是判决应受惩处的罪行，并经常会裁定至最低限度。从这点上来讲，小陪审团制度有力地保障了自由，抵抗了行政压制及减轻了严刑峻法的苛刻性。在英格兰，小陪审团制度在民事案件中的使用由于立法而大大减少，而在刑事案件中的使用仍保持着它的传统形式。然而，值得注意的是，陪审团自始至今在衡平法上的案件中都不是必须使用的。


  　  The civil jury, however, is subject to much criticism. Itappears, sometimes, to be a means whereby individuals can obtain unjust judgments against corporate defendants, for the jury maytend to ally itself with the underdog. The jury is, in many instances, incompetentto handleinvolved testimony, particularly on technical matters. In thiscountry, nevertheless, accusations of bias,incompetence, capriciousness, unpredictability, delay, and expenseusually have gone unheeded.
    然而，民事陪审团备受非议。有时，民事陪审团显得只是一种手段，通过该手段，个人会在应付共同被告时受到不公正判决，因为陪审团倾向于与处于弱势的一方结盟的。在许多情况下，陪审团是无力处理复杂的证词的，特别是在具有科技性的问题上。不过，在这个国家，没有人指控陪审团的不公正、无能力、反复无常、不可预见性、办事拖拉及费用昂贵等问题。


The trial jury, to speak for the momentin its defense, is presented with a difficult task. It must reconstructhistory. It must determine the facts of a past transaction. If its verdictsseem excessive, one must keep in mind the impossibility of determining themoney value of such intangibles as pain and suffering or loss of reputation.Any criticism of the jury must also take into account possible alternativemethods of finding facts. And in such deliberations it must not be forgottenthat jury verdicts do not create precedents.
小陪审团审理案件是一项相当复杂的工作。它必须重现历史。它必须判定过去所发生事件的真相。如果裁决看起来过分了，它就必须牢记遭受痛苦或损失声誉的不可估量性。陪审团的任何批评必须考虑到寻找真相的可能的替代方法。并且，在诸如此类的审议意见里，必须牢记陪审团裁决不能成为先例。


The second type of jury is the grand jury. It differs from the trialor petit jury in that it does not decide questions of guilt or innocence. Itsfunction is accusatory. When a possible defender isbrought before a magistrate, and the magistrate believes there is suspicion ofguilt, the matter is presented to the grand jury for investigation. If thegrand jury finds enough evidence to warrant a trial, it will issue a true billof indictment and the case will proceed. If the evidence is insufficient, thecase will be dismissed. On occasion, the grand jury is charged with a specialcommission to investigate specific types of possiblecriminal activity among the general population or among governmentalofficials, and such investigations may also result in indictments. The grandjury has been abolished in Englandand in approximate one-half of our states. Its existence, however, isguaranteed by the Constitution in federal cases.
  陪审团的第二种形式是大陪审团。它与小陪审团的不同之处在于它不在有罪还是无罪的问题上做出裁决。它的功能是起诉（式）的。当一个犯罪嫌疑人被带至一个地方法官面前时，地方法官认为有犯罪的嫌疑，这个事情就会交由大陪审团调查。如果大陪审团能够提供足够的证据认定该犯罪嫌疑人有罪，它就可以签署正式起诉书，继续审理案件。如果证据不足，案件将被驳回。有时，大陪审团承担着调查普通人群或者政府官员之中的特殊种类的犯罪行为，然后提出控告。在英国以及我们将近一半的州里，大陪审团制度已经被废除了。然而，联邦宪法依然保证了它在处理联邦案件时的存在。


   Both types of juries fit the classicdefinition given by Frederick Maitland many years ago: that ajury is a body of neighbors summoned under oath by a public official to answerquestions. The trial jury answers the question of guilt or innocence, liability or nonliability; the grand jurydetermines whether there is enough evidence to warrant a criminal trial. Notonly do these juries fit the same definition, but they derive, ultimately andin the distant past, from the same origins.
这两种形式的陪审团都适于多年前弗雷德里克·梅特兰给出的经典定义：陪审团是由一名政府官员将一群人召集起来、宣誓要如实回答问题的机构。审理陪审团回答是否有罪、是否有责任的问题；大陪审团裁决是否有足够的证据来证明一桩刑事审判。这些陪审团不仅适合同样的定义，而且它们也是有着同样古老的根源。


     Today as mentioned earlier, the grand jury exists in onlyhalf the United Statesand in the federal courts. In 1948 it was abolished in England, and it does not exist in civil-law countries. The petit jury exists in all ourstates and in the federal courts, although it often is waived in technical cases or concurrence of both parties. It existsin Englandin criminal cases, but in only a few types of civil cases. In civil-lawcountries it is not used in civil cases at all, although in some civil-lawcountries a petit jury is occasionally used in criminal cases.
    正如之前所述，大陪审团今天只存在于美国半数的州以及联邦法院而已。1948年英国废除了大陪审团制度，该制度也不存在于民法法制国家。虽然在专门案件或双方都出庭的时候，小陪审团可能会被摒弃，但它仍存在于我们所有的州之中。它存在于英格兰的刑事案件以及少数类型的民事案件中。在民法法系国家，处理民事案件时根本用不上它，虽然在一些民法法系国家里小陪审团偶尔用于刑事案件。


The modern alternative to the grand jury is accusation by information. Informations were used in early England, particularly by theCouncil and Star Chamber. The district attorney or other appropriate officialdirectly orders the criminal court to try a criminal case. Under theinformation procedure, prosecution of a criminal case depends on the decisionof the district attorney’s office.
    大陪审团的现代替代品是检举书作出的控告。检举书使用于早期的英格兰，尤以枢密院和星室法庭使用最多。美国地方检查官或是其他适当的官员直接命令刑事法庭审理刑事案件。在检举书的程序下，一桩刑事案件的起诉取决于美国地方检查官机构所做出的裁决。


It should be apparent that there is nothing in the history of jury systemto require its indefinite continuance. For cases in which it does not, itshould be eliminated. Whatever substitute may be found for the jury, however,the basic problem of reconstructing the history of a transaction will remain. Amore professional technique of fact determination, therefore, may not necessarilyresult in greater speed, impartiality, wisdom or truth.
显而易见的应该是，在陪审制度的历史上，没有什么要求它无限持续下去。在没有必要存在的案件里，它应该被取消。然而，不管陪审团的替代品是什么，重建事件历史这个基本问题依然存在。因此，更加专业的事实判定技巧未必就能让事情更快、更公正、更智慧地解决，未必就能找出真相。


     It might be observed that our judicial system does notalways have the finding of truth as its primary objective. We note, of recentyears, judicial disapproval of various means of ascertainingtruth-wire-tapping, drug-induced testimony, entrapment into illegal acts, andthe like, each of which is considered an infringement under many circumstancesof constitutional rights. Just as science can enable us to ascertain truth withgreater, although not absolute, certainty, so it can enable the state tooppress and persecute its citizens. The balance between convicting the guiltyand protecting the civil rights or all is not an easy one to establish or tomaintain.
    应该要观察到，我们的司法制度并不总是以发现真相作为它的主要目标。近年来，我们注意到，法庭不支持通过电话或网络窃听、药物引导、引诱违法等诸如此类的方法来查找真相，在很多情况下，这些方法都被认为是对宪法权利的侵犯。正如科学能够使我们更有把握，虽然不是绝对有把握地探知真相，所以它能够让国家压制、迫害它的公民。证明犯人有罪以及保护公民权利之间的平衡是不容易建立或保持的。