What happened to trial by jury? - Suja A. Thomas

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Helen Chang

Dating back at least to the time of Socrates,

回溯到至少蘇格拉底的時代，

some early societies decided that certain disputes,

一些早期的社會決定，某些爭端，

such as whether a person committed a particular crime,

比如，一個人是否有犯下某種罪行，

should be heard by a group of citizens.

應該要交由一群公民來聽審。

Several centuries later, trial by jury was introduced to England,

數個世紀後，英國導入了 陪審團審判的制度，

where it became a fundamental feature of the legal system,

在英國，這制度成為 司法體制的一個基本特徵，

checking the government and involving citizens in decision-making.

讓政府及相關的公民 能夠參與決策。

Juries decided whether defendants would be tried on crimes,

陪審團要判斷被告 是否需為犯罪而受審，

determined whether the accused defendants were guilty,

並決定被告是否有罪，

and resolved monetary disputes.

還要解決金錢糾紛。

While the American colonies eventually cast off England's rule,

雖然美國殖民地最終 脫離了英國的統治，

its legal tradition of the jury persisted.

其陪審團的司法傳統 仍然保留下來。

The United States Constitution instructed a grand jury

依美國憲法的指示，大陪審團

to decide whether criminal cases proceeded,

要決定刑事案件是否要起訴，

required a jury to try all crimes, except impeachment,

憲法也要求陪審團來聽審 所有犯罪，只有彈劾除外，

and provided for juries in civil cases as well.

憲法亦有關於民事案件 陪審團的規定。

Yet, in the US today, grand juries often are not convened,

但，在現今的美國， 大陪審團通常不會被傳喚，

and juries decide less than 4% of criminal cases

只有不到 4% 的刑事案件 是由陪審團來決定，

and less than 1% of civil cases filed in court.

法庭有建檔的民事案件更只有 不到 1% 由陪審團決定。

That's at the same time as jury systems in other countries are growing.

在同時，其他國家的 陪審團制度則在成長。

So what happened in the U.S.?

所以，在美國發生了什麼事？

Part of the story lies in how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution.

有部分與最高法庭 如何解釋憲法有關。

It's permitted plea bargaining,

問題在於幾乎每一個刑事案件中

which now occurs in almost every criminal case.

都會發生認罪協商的討價還價。

The way it works is the prosecutor presents the accused

它的運作方式是：公訴人向被告提出

with a decision of whether to plead guilty.

是否要認罪的決定。

If they accept the plea, the case won't go in front of a jury,

如果他們接受認罪， 案件就不會交給陪審團，

but they'll receive a shorter prison sentence

但他們會被判較短的監獄刑期，

than they'd get if a jury did convict them.

會比如果陪審團定了罪 所判的刑期來得短。

The risk of a much greater prison sentence after a trial

進入審判有被判更長監獄刑期的風險

can frighten even an innocent defendant into taking a plea.

甚至使得無辜的被告 被嚇到接受認罪。

Between the 19th century and the 21st century,

在 19 世紀到 21 世紀間，

the proportion of guilty pleas has increased from around 20% to 90%,

認罪比例從約 20% 增加到 90%，

and the numbers continue to grow.

這個數字還在不斷成長。

The Supreme Court has permitted the use of another procedure

最高法庭也允許使用

另一種會妨礙陪審團的程序，

that interferes with the jury

called summary judgement.

叫作簡易判決。

如果提告的人沒有足夠的證據，

Using summary judgement, judges can decide that civil trials are unnecessary

法官能使用簡易判決， 決定民事審判是否有必要。

if the people who sue have insufficient evidence.

This is intended only for cases where no reasonable jury would disagree.

這程序的本意是只要用在 理性的陪審團都會同意的案件上。

That's a difficult thing to determine,

那是很難判斷的事，

yet usage of summary judgement has stretched to the point

但簡易判決的廣泛使用，已經到了

where some would argue it's being abused.

會讓一些人認為它被濫用的程度。

For instance, judges grant fully, or in part,

比如，法官完全或部分同意

over 70% of employers' requests

超過 70% 僱主所提

to dismiss employment discrimination cases.

要駁回僱用歧視案件的請求。

In other cases, both the person who sues and the person who defends

在其他的情況下，提告者與被告者

forgo their right to go to court,

則會放棄他們出庭的權利，

instead resolving their dispute through a professional arbitrator.

改選擇透過專業的仲裁者 來解決他們的糾紛。

These are generally lawyers, professors, or former judges.

仲裁者通常是律師、 教授，或前任法官。

Arbitration can be a smart decision by both parties

仲裁可以是雙方合意的明智決定，

to avoid the requirements of a trial in court,

能避免被要求出庭受審，

but it's often agreed to unwittingly when people sign contracts

當人們簽訂就業申請 和消費者協議等合同時，

like employment applications and consumer agreements.

通常會不知不覺地同意仲裁。

That can become a problem.

這會是個問題。

For example, some arbitrators may be biased

比如，有些仲裁者可能會有偏見，

towards the companies that give them cases.

偏袒給他們案子的公司。

These are just some of the ways in which juries have disappeared.

陪審團消失的原因很多， 這些只是其中一些。

But could the disappearance of juries be a good thing?

但，陪審團的消失 有沒有可能是好事？

Well, juries aren't perfect.

嗯，陪審團並不完美。

They're costly,

他們很貴、很耗時間，

time-consuming,

and may make errors.

且可能犯錯。

And they're not always necessary,

而且他們不見得是必要的，

like when people can simply agree to settle their disputes.

比如，當人們很單純地同意 進行和解時，就不需要。

But juries have their advantages.

但陪審團也有他們的好處。

When properly selected,

若能選擇妥當，

jurors are more representative of the general population

陪審員會比較能代表一般大眾，

and don't have the same incentives as prosecutors,

且他們的動機不同於公訴人、

legislators,

立法者，或法官，

or judges

seeking reelection or promotion.

不像他們要尋求連任或升官。

The founders of the United States trusted in the wisdom

美國的建國者相信

of impartial groups of citizens

公正的公民群體有智慧

to check the power of all three branches of government.

能查驗政府的這三項權力分支。

And the jury trial itself has given ordinary citizens

陪審團審判本身賦予一般公民

a central role in upholding the social fabric.

一個支撐社會組織的重要角色。

So will the jury system in the U.S. survive into the future?

美國的陪審團體制 在未來還能存活下去嗎？