How to Participate in Your Own Legal Defense | Lam Ho | TED

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Shelley Tsang 曾雯海

I'm a lawyer based in Chicago,

我在芝加哥當律師,

and two months ago I represented a Vietnamese immigrant woman

兩個月前，

我代表了一位越南移民女子 處理她的離婚。

in her divorce.

As she was testifying about how her husband brutally raped her,

當她作證她的先生 如何殘酷地強暴她時，

the judge repeatedly told her to stop speaking.

法官重複要求她停止發言。

She should only speak when I asked her a question.

她應該只能在我問她 問題時才能發言。

Can you imagine having to publicly share one of the most painful,

各位能否想像，必須要公開分享

你人生中最創傷性的時刻之一，

traumatic moments in your life

and being told over and over again to basically shut up?

卻不斷被告知， 基本上就是要你閉嘴？

It felt so wrong, but also so familiar for me.

這感覺實在太不對了，

但我卻很熟悉這種狀況。

My mother,

我的母親，

she had no say in her divorce.

她在她的離婚中沒有發言權。

She didn't have a lawyer,

她沒有律師，

so she signed papers giving away everything

所以她簽署文件，

把一切都交出去，

because she thought she would otherwise be deported back to Vietnam.

因為她以為，若不這麼做 她就會被驅逐回越南。

I thought by becoming a lawyer,

我以為若我成為律師，

I could help people like my mother.

我就能協助像我母親這樣的人。

But then I realized I was actually part of the problem.

但我接著發現，我其實 就是問題的一部分。

As lawyers, we take over speaking for our clients.

身為律師，

我們會接手，為客戶發言，

And courtroom procedures,

而法庭程序 ，

rules of evidence means that we have all the power

證據規則，意味著我們全權掌控

in what happens in their cases.

他們的案子會如何發展。

We take terrible situations from people's lives

我們把客戶人生中十分糟糕的情況

and we translate it into legal language.

翻譯成法律語言。

But, in doing so,

但，這麼做，

we rewrite our clients as caricatures.

我們是把我們的客戶 改寫為諷刺漫畫，

The most helpless, most victimized versions of themselves.

成了他們自己最無助、 最受害的版本。

This is the American legal system.

這就是美國的法律體系。

And that's why, eight years ago,

那就是為什麼，八年前， 我成立了「超越法律援助」，

I founded Beyond Legal Aid

in the belief that it doesn't have to be this way,

因為我相信不必要如此，

and lawyers can actually change it, working within,

律師其實可以改變 這個現象，從內做起，

making it so that clients can speak for themselves.

讓客戶可以為自己發言。

How does this work?

這怎麼運作？

First, instead of working nine to five in offices downtown,

第一，

不再在鬧區的辦公室 從九點工作到五點，

we travel, go to our clients where they live.

我們改成自己前往客戶生活的地方。

And during evenings,

時間是傍晚、

nights and weekends when they are available.

晚上，和週末，他們有空的時候。

And they can be active participants in the legal process.

他們可以主動參與訴訟程序。

Next, let me share a little secret.

接著，讓我分享一個小秘密。

Well, at least for the non-lawyers.

至少對不是律師的人來說是秘密。

Attorneys like to be in charge.

律師喜歡主導。

We go to law school,

我們去讀法學院，

we hang up fancy law degrees, and we wear fancy suits --

把很炫的法律學位證書掛起來，

穿很炫的西裝——

obviously much fancier than what I’m wearing --

顯然比我現在穿的還要更炫——

because we want to be in control.

因為我們想要掌控。

But it’s our clients whose lives are being judged

但，被審的是我們的客戶的人生，

and impacted by what I do.

我的所做所為會影響他們。

They need to be full partners in charge of their own cases.

他們必須成為正式合作夥伴，

主導他們自己的案子。

We can give advice,

我們可以給建議，

empower them to navigate the legal system.

讓他們有能力 在法律體系中找到方向。

But ultimately,

但，最終，

we need to follow their lead and defer to their decisions.

我們需要遵從他們的領導，

聽從他們的決策。

Let me give you an example.

讓我舉個例子。

One of our clients, let's call him Atticus,

我們有位客戶，

咱們稱他為艾提克斯，

he was facing deportation in a case where the law was completely against us.

他面臨會被驅逐的處境，

在他的案子中，法律完全 不站在我們這一邊。

Atticus had been in ICE detention for several months

艾提克斯被移民及海關 執法局拘留了數個月，

because the immigration judge denied him bond.

因為移民法官不讓他用保釋金保釋。

So he and OCAD, the Organized Communities Against Deportation,

所以，他和 OCAD （反驅逐組織社區），

the community group we were working with on his case,

我們在他的案子中 找的社區團體夥伴，

wanted to try for bond a second time.

想要二度嘗試爭取保釋。

I and the other lawyers were like,

我和其他律師的反應是：

"No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

「不，不，不，不，不，不。

You can't do that.

你不能那樣做。

The law is bad,

法律很不好，法官已經拒絕過一次，

the judge has already said no once,

and we don't want to piss him off by questioning his decision."

我們不想惹惱他，

去質疑他的決定。」

But they wanted to proceed, so we deferred to their decision.

但他們想要繼續做下去，

所以我們聽從了他們的決定。

However, instead of my sharing his situation on his behalf,

然而，

不是由我來代表他分享他的情況，

we convinced the judge to hear a live conversation

我們說服法官，聽一段現場對談，

between Atticus and his US citizen son,

艾提克斯和他的美國公民 兒子所做的對談，

let's call him Jem.

咱們稱他為詹姆。

Jem spoke about how he wanted to commit suicide

詹姆說到他有多想自殺，

because he couldn't live without his father anymore.

因為沒有他的父親他就活不下去了。

Atticus broke down,

艾提克斯崩潰了，

sobbing in despair

絕望地啜泣，

because he felt responsible for what was happening with his son

因為他覺得他要為 他兒子的處境負責，

and yet couldn't be there for him.

卻無法陪在他兒子身邊。

The judge was forced to hear directly

法官被迫直接聆聽

how Atticus and Jem loved each other and how much they needed each other.

艾提克斯和詹姆有多愛彼此，

以及他們多需要彼此。

He heard it unadulterated, in full, without any questions,

他完整地聽完了全部，

沒有任何問題，

without any interruptions by any lawyers.

沒有任何律師打斷。

Unfortunately, he denied bond a second time.

不幸的是，

他再次駁回了保釋。

But --

但是——

and of course there’s a “but,” right,

當然還有「但是」，不然 我就不用說這個故事了。

otherwise, I wouldn't be telling you this story.

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

The judge then cancelled Atticus’s deportation.

法官接著取消了艾提克斯的驅逐令。

I cannot tell you how utterly,

我無法告訴各位，這場法律勝仗

absolutely shocking that legal victory was.

是多大的震撼。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

I was like, "Oh my God, I can't believe this happened."

我的反應是：「天， 我不敢相信這真的發生了。」

And ...

且……

I’m going to say something now, which lawyers don’t say very often

我接下來要說的，

是律師不常說的，

but probably should say a lot more often.

但應該要更常說。

I was wrong.

我錯了。

My client and his community, they knew better.

我的客戶和他的社區，他們更懂。

If we had not followed their lead and tried for bond a second time,

如果我們沒有遵循他們的領導，

再次嘗試保釋，

the judge would have never heard Atticus tell his own story

法官就永遠不會聽到 艾提克斯訴說他自己的故事，

and be so moved by what was going on

被發生的狀況給深深打動，

that he defied the law

讓他違抗法律，

to allow Atticus to stay in the country with his son.

允許艾提克斯待在美國陪他的兒子。

Atticus being able to tell his own story,

艾提克斯因為能夠訴說 他自己的故事，

created a decision that was impossible,

因而創造出了不可能的決定，

at least what we thought as attorneys.

至少是我們律師認為不可能的。

Atticus sharing and talking his own case

艾提克斯分享和談論他自己的案子

created justice where the law was wrong.

在法律犯錯的地方，創造了正義。

And that's why the legal system has to change,

這就是為什麼法律體系需要改變，

so that people like Atticus can share their own stories,

讓像艾提克斯這樣的人 能夠分享他們自己的故事，

have agency over their own cases.

能代理自己的案子。

In the meantime, we as lawyers need to make it happen in our work,

同時，我們律師

必須要在我們的工作、 我們的案件中實現它，

in our cases right now.

現在就開始。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）