Jessica Kerr: Who makes judges? | TED

Transcriber:

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Helen Chang

You're in a room you don't want to be in.

你在一個房間裡，但你不想在這裡。

Something bad has happened.

有壞事發生了。

There's a stranger in a suit with your future in their hands,

有個穿著西裝的陌生人，

掌控了你的未來，

A judge.

法官。

Four years ago, that judge was me.

四年前，那個法官就是我。

當時那些仰視我的人 除了信任我之外別無選擇。

The people looking up at me then had no choice but to trust me.

But what had I done to deserve it?

但，我做了什麼才能得到這些？

Australia's judicial system operates under a shroud of mystique

澳洲的司法體制的運作方式， 被一層神秘給覆蓋著，

which fends off tough questions like this.

這層神秘可以抵擋 像上述這樣難搞的問題。

But you will have the right to ask

但你有權問

how people like me prepare for the job of judging.

像我這樣的人怎麼 為審判工作做準備。

And you may not feel comfortable with the answers.

答案可能會讓你不舒服。

The system needs to change.

這個體制必須要改變。

To set the scene, first, let's think about public confidence.

為了描述背景，首先，

咱們來想想公眾信心。

Judges in Australia are not elected.

澳洲的法官不是選出來的。

Yet, the power they wield is immense.

但，他們能行使的權力卻非常大。

Ultimately, we trust the system

歸根結底，我們會信任這個體制，

because we believe that judges generally get it right.

因為我們相信，法官

通常不會弄錯。

If we lose that belief,

若我們失去這種信心，

we risk unbalancing the whole constitution.

就有可能會造成整個憲法失衡。

But we live in a time when blind faith in elites is eroding fast.

但在我們所處的時代， 對菁英的盲目信任正快速蝕去。

Judges are increasingly vulnerable to the "why" question.

法官越來越禁不起 「為什麼」這種問題。

Why do you deserve the power we have given you?

你憑什麼得到我們賦予你的權力？

And so they should be.

他們應該被質疑。

Second, it's fundamental that judges have to be seen as independent,

第二，

很重要的是，法官必須 被視為獨立的角色，

doing their jobs without fear or favor.

工作時要能無所懼也不談人情。

To avoid any pressure from the government of the day,

為了避免來自當權政府的壓力。

judges have high salaries, which can never be cut,

法官的薪水很高，且永遠不能砍，

and they can't be fired for what they say or do.

也不能因為他們的 言行舉止而開除他們。

Unless they're obviously corrupt or mad.

除非他們很明顯腐敗了或發瘋了。

In exchange, judges agree to be ultrarestrained,

交換條件是，法官同意會超級嚴謹，

both in and out of court.

不論在法庭上或法庭外。

A kind of veil comes down when a judge is appointed.

法官被任命時，彷彿 就有片帷幕降下來。

It's a lonely way to live,

這是種寂寞的生活方式，

and it feeds into this sense that judges are somehow different

且會造成一種感覺： 在某種層面上法官

和我們其他人不同。

from the rest of us.

Finally, I can tell you that all judges are in theory appointed on merit.

最後，我可以告訴各位，

理論上，所有的法官 都是因功績而被任命。

That sounds good.

聽起來很好。

And in theory it is.

理論上的確很好。

Judges are chosen in a confidential process

選擇法官的過程是保密的，

which relies heavily on advice from senior judges.

而資深法官的建議 對這個過程的影響非常大。

The people chosen are all experienced lawyers,

被選中的人都是有經驗的律師，

traditionally top courtroom lawyers or barristers,

傳統上頂尖的法庭律師或大律師，

who spend their days appearing in front of judges.

平常就會出現在法官面前。

They're all personally shoulder-tapped for the job,

他們全是由有權者從圈內挑出來的，

and the results are in general, pretty impressive.

一般來說，結果都很讓人印象深刻。

But what do we really mean when we talk about merit?

但，

我們說的功績是什麼意思？

For one thing, barristers are historically maler,

首先，歷史上，大律師

會比其他律師更多男性、

paler and staler than other lawyers,

更多白人、更守舊。

which is really saying something.

這背後就有些訊息了。

It's been argued that the people who get chosen as judges are above all,

有人認為，被選為 法官的那些人通常都是

the ones who remind existing judges of themselves.

會讓既有的法官想起自己的人。

Diversity on the bench is an issue that's become impossible to ignore.

法官的多樣性已經成了 無法忽略的議題。

And judges are essentially picked

基本上，挑選法官

based on how well they argue cases in front of judges.

是根據他們在法官面前 為案件所做的辯論有多好。

But that doesn't really make sense.

但這並不合理。

Let's compare a courtroom and an operating theater.

咱們把法庭比喻成手術室。

Barristers and judges both play essential roles in court,

大律師和法官在法庭上 都扮演重要的角色，

just like anesthetists and surgeons in an operation.

就如同手術中的麻醉師和外科醫師。

But you don't hand an anesthetist a scalpel

但你不會把手術刀交給麻醉師，

just because he's been putting people to sleep

只因為他為外科醫師

for the surgeon for 10 years.

麻醉病人有十年之久。

The underlying skill set may be the same in law as in medicine,

在法律和在醫學領域， 背後的所有技能可能相同，

but the jobs are fundamentally different.

但工作職位從根本上就不同。

The strange truth about judging in countries like Australia

在像澳洲這樣的國家， 關於審判，有一點很奇妙，

is that even though judges are such an important part of government,

那就是，雖然法官 是政府很重要的一部分，

we've basically privatized the system of making them.

我們基本上卻把 產生法官的體制給私有化。

That work is done, if it's done at all,

如果有產生法官的話， 這項產生的工作

within the private legal profession.

就是在私有的法律職業中完成的。

And here's the thing.

重點來了。

There is no judge school for wannabe judges.

沒有法官學校

給想要當法官的人就讀。

Judicial appointment is seen as a badge of honor,

司法任命被視為是榮譽勳章，

not as a professional milestone that a lawyer builds up to

而不是律師累積的職業里程碑，

the way that a doctor works towards specialization.

不像醫師朝專業化精進的方式。

Judges are just lawyers

法官就只是律師，

until the day they take the judicial oath.

做完司法誓言的那天之後 就變成法官了。

And from that day it is sink or swim,

從那天起，成敗就全靠自己，

except they can't be fired for incompetence.

除了一點，

他們不會因為無能而被開除。

How do you think it would feel

你覺得這會是怎樣的感覺：

to know your life was on the line in a judge's first ever case?

發現悠關你性命的案件竟然交給

沒審理過案件的法官來審理？

And how do you think that judge would feel?

你覺得法官又是什麼感覺？

The transition to the bench can be a baptism by fire.

轉換成法官的過程， 也可能是用火受洗。

I had never run a criminal trial as a lawyer,

我在當律師時從來沒有 主持過刑事審判，

and there I was in a magistrate's court

我卻在治安法庭上，

in the Seychelles,

在塞席爾，

being asked to hand down 12-year prison sentences

被要求要宣佈十二年有期徒刑，

in my first month on the job.

那時才是我做這份工作的第一個月。

It was terrifying.

那非常嚇人。

Is it any easier to make that transition as a top courtroom lawyer?

對頂尖的法庭律師， 這種跑道轉換會不會比較容易？

Well, in some ways, definitely.

在某些層面上肯定會。

Barristers do know a lot of law

大律師確實很懂法律，

and the years of watching judges in action do give them a head start

多年觀察法官做事，

也讓他們比其他人更先 了解這個流程怎麼運作。

on how the process works.

But as society changes,

但，隨著社會改變，

our expectations of judges are changing, too.

我們對法官的期望也會改變。

Judges are increasingly called on

法官也漸漸被要求 必須要會各種額外的

for a whole range of extra nonlegal skills.

非法律技能。

They have to be managers and leaders,

他們也得扮演經理、領導人，

politically and culturally savvy,

在政治上和文化上都要很有見識，

able to handle relentless scrutiny and social isolation.

能夠應付無情的監督

和社交孤立。

We don't necessarily expect or even value those skills in a barrister.

我們不見得會期望或重視 大律師的那些技能。

And when we aim for a more diverse judiciary,

若我們的目標是 更多樣性的司法制度，

the problem actually gets worse.

問題還會更糟。

If we want less male, less pale judges,

如果我們希望法官中 少一點男性、白人，

we're not likely to find them all in barristers chambers.

我們不見得能在大法律事務所 裡面找到所有需要的人。

And people who haven't spent their working lives in court

而工作生活不是在法庭裡的那些人，

can't possibly be expected to just know how judging works,

沒有人會預期他們能知道 審判的運作方式，

no matter how excellent they may be in other ways.

不論他們在其他方面有多出色。

So what you end up with is a situation where no new judge

所以，最後的結果就是，

沒有新法官有可能會擁有

is actually likely to have every piece of the merit puzzle.

每一塊必要的功績拼圖。

But the number and shape of those missing pieces

但缺少幾片拼圖、什麼形狀，

varies hugely from judge to judge.

每位法官都很不一樣。

How is this OK?

這怎麼會可行？

Why does our system assume that anyone comes ready-made

為什麼我們的體制會假設

有人能完全準備好

for such a demanding job?

接下這麼多要求的工作？

It turns out there are some pretty strong cultural reasons why.

結果發現，

背後有一些很有力的文化理由。

People who study judiciaries, that's me now,

讀司法的人，也就是我，

are traditionally reluctant to talk about behind-the-scenes issues,

傳統上都不願意去談幕後的議題，

like making judges,

比如「成為法官」，

for fear of being seen as interfering with judicial independence.

因為害怕被視為是在干預司法獨立。

I think this has gone too far.

我認為這已經過頭了。

Independence depends on public confidence.

獨立要仰賴公眾信心。

And we can no longer be expected to trust what can't be explained and justified.

現在已經不可能再期望我們去相信

無法解釋、沒有正當理由的事。

But the legal elite have an obvious interest in maintaining the status quo.

但法律菁英

很明顯比較想要維持現狀。

As a lawyer,

身為律師，

it feels uncomfortable to criticize a process

我很不容易去批評這個過程，

that my barrister friends say is a natural progression,

畢竟我的大律師朋友們 都說它是自然的發展，

even a kind of right.

甚至是種權利。

And getting any lawyer to talk openly about learning how to judge is hard.

要讓任何律師公開談論 關於學習如何審判的事，

是很困難的。

People like me learn quickly

像我這種人很快就學到，

that admitting to judicial ambitions is out of order.

承認想當法官的野心是違反規則的。

You can aim to be a barrister, which puts you in the running,

你可以把目當上大律師 設為目標，讓你進入賽跑，

but you can't be seen as angling for an appointment.

但你不能被視為是在 謀取被任命的機會。

The contrast with a profession like medicine couldn't be more stark.

這和醫療等職業是明顯相反的對比。

The incentives in law are all backwards.

在法律界的獎勵全都是逆向的。

I came to realize

我漸漸了解到，

that it was only in confronting these culture barriers

唯有正面對抗這些文化障礙，

that I would have any hope of breaking through

我才有希望能有所突破，

from the why to the how.

從「為什麼」邁進到「如何」。

So how do we talk about making judges?

所以，

我們要如何談「成為法官」？

It starts with government taking more responsibility for its own processes.

首先要從政府開始，

政府要對其自己的流程更負責。

And not just in explaining why it picks one person over another,

而且不只是要解釋它為什麼 挑這個人，不挑那個人，

although that would help.

不過，有解釋也有幫助。

At the top of my list is ongoing education for judges.

我認為最重要的，

是給法官的持續教育。

Judges in Australia do actually go to judge school now,

澳洲的法官

現在確實會去讀法官學校了，

kind of,

算是吧，

but only behind closed doors once they're already on the job.

但，一旦他們已經就任之後， 就只能關起門來做。

It's labeled as CPD: Continuing professional development,

這種教育被標籤為 CPD，

即持續專業發展，

which is totally routine and compulsory for lawyers

對律師及其他現代專業人士，

and other modern professionals.

CPD 是慣例且要強制參加的。

But because no one is supposed to tell a judge what to do

但因為不應該有人 來告訴法官要做什麼，

or how to think,

或如何思考，

in case that undermines their independence,

以免破壞了他們的獨立性，

it's all voluntary.

CPD 全是自願性的。

In principle, a judge like me could just say no.

原則上，像我這樣的法官可以說不。

And that CPD label neatly avoids the elephant in the room,

而那 CPD 標籤

很漂亮地避開了房間中的大象 （顯而易見卻被忽視的東西），

the fact that every modern lawyer needs at least some help

這隻大象就是：所有現代律師

都至少需要一些協助，

learning how to be a good judge in the first place.

幫助他們先了解如何當個好法官。

There's actually some amazing work starting to happen in judicial education,

其實在司法教育中，已經開始

有些很棒的做為了，

but it is nowhere near enough.

只是還遠遠不足夠。

And in any case,

無論如何，

it's those pre-appointment years that matter the most.

被任命之前的那些年 才是影響最大的。

Government has taken no responsibility at all here.

政府在這方面，

完全沒有扛起任何責任。

And to get past that stigma on wannabe judges,

若要擺脫「想成為法官」的污名，

the profession itself has to change.

這個職業本身必須要改變。

Whether it happens formally or informally,

不論是以正式或非正式的方式，

we need to be thinking about a judicial career path

我們都得想出一條司法職涯路，

and actively creating judicial merit.

並主動創造司法的價值。

We need to support young lawyers like me,

我們需要支持像我這樣的年輕律師，

particularly the diverse ones,

特別是多樣性的律師，

to do things that will make them great judges,

支持他們去做能讓他們 變成好法官的事，

not just great lawyers,

不只是好律師而已，

especially when those things

尤其是，目前去做那些事

are not likely to get them promoted as lawyers.

不太可能讓律師有被提拔的機會。

In hindsight, I wish I'd had way more experience

事後想想，我希望 我當時有更多經驗，

in things like community justice,

比如社區司法、

technology and management.

科技，和管理的經驗。

And I so wish I could have gone to judge school.

且，我好希望我當時 能去讀法官學校。

Better prepared lawyers would mean better inputs

讓律師做更好的準備，就表示

挑選和管理法官的人 會有比較好的人選，

for those people who choose and manage judges

and ultimately better evidence that those judges deserve your trust.

最終，

也會更能證明 那些法官值得你的信任。

And that's what it all comes back to.

最後全都會回到這裡。

Any of us, any day,

我們任何人，在任何時候，

could find our future in the hands of a judge.

都可能遇到我們的未來 掌握在法官手上的情況。

In that moment,

那時候，

we need to be able to look each other in the eye

我們需要能夠直視彼此，

and know we can trust the system.

並清楚知道我們能信任這個體制。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）