Chapter 13 thirteenth letter

Brother Lu: Hello! I remember I started writing you about the case the very night the Simpson verdict was announced.I can still remember the shock that everyone around me went through that day.Ten o'clock in the morning in Los Angeles is one o'clock in the afternoon on the east coast of the United States, so my friends and I spent a very restless morning that day.I have experienced a U.S. election, and people were far less tense than waiting for the results of the new president.The press later reported that during the ten minutes before and after the announcement, people across the United States almost stopped all activities, did not work, did not attend classes, did not make phone calls, did not go to the bathroom, and everyone was listening to Simpson's sentence.At Hartsf International Airport in Atlanta, because everyone was watching TV, boarding of several flights of Delta Air Lines was delayed. The passengers yelled together, telling her to "shut up".At a bank in Miami, tellers stopped counting money, the line suddenly disappeared, and everyone went to watch TV.Although the New York Stock Exchange did not stop trading, it became very slow after one o'clock. At ten o'clock, on the signboard showing the stock price, an extra line of words "Simpson was acquitted of all charges" was printed. After that, Transactions returned to normal.The Chicago Board of Trade, usually filled with the deafening shouts of traders, was completely silent during the few minutes of the sentencing.It is usually difficult for senior officials of the federal government in the capital to admit that there is something more important than their official business at hand, but on this day, all agencies and departments were almost shut down, from the White House to Congress and various federal departments. Many one o'clock briefings, hearings and press conferences on state policy were either postponed or canceled in anticipation of Simpson's trial.People get news in various ways.Bike couriers in the capital radio to get results from corporate dispatch, shouting to passers-by along the way.

This is an extraordinary moment in the United States, and it is beyond the imagination of Americans themselves.The most diverse and most divided Americans, unexpectedly at the same moment, systematically criticized his views in "Theory of National Consistency".The main works include "Philosophy Course", thousands of people are doing exactly the same thing in different places, "all routine things are swallowed up by great curiosity". Although I, like many Americans, expected such an outcome, but like them, I couldn't recover from the huge shock for a long time.This sentence contains too much content.

Just after the trial ended, the prosecution and the defense and the families of the parties immediately held separate press conferences.Simpson's son read a statement from his father saying that "the most important goal of his life is to catch the killers of Nicole and Goldman."The prosecution and the family members of the victim can almost be described as "tragic" in front of the TV cameras.The prosecutor's lawyers hugged the victim's family emotionally, expressing their gratitude and comfort to each other.It is really touching to see the "team spirit" shown by this legal team.Although they were a "team" that lost in a "key competition", you saw that they were still united and shared disappointment and pain with each other. The female prosecutor Clark, who led the team, highly praised and thanked his colleagues.During this year, they all paid a great price. Clark herself lost her custody of her children because of working around the clock.The last trembling speech of the elder Goldman, oscillating in every corner of the United States: "June 13, 1994 was the day when the worst nightmare of my life befell, and today is the second nightmare. Today, and It's not the prosecutor who lost this case, it's the country that lost today. Justice and justice have not been served."

The defense lawyer's "racial strategy" in the final closing defense has made it impossible for the case to have a strong racial overtone in society.Many black people who believed in Simpson's innocence happily celebrated that "justice and fairness have been done." In the street interviews on TV, many white people expressed disappointment.However, this division is not absolute.For the sane man, the eternal truth is the absolute ultimate, immutable truth.Philosophers, all based on their analysis and intuition, are making their own judgments about the case, not based on their racial affiliation.In fact, whether black or white or other races, there are still different conclusions on this question.After the verdict came out, most Americans still believed that Simpson killed someone.The problem is, whether Simpson is guilty or innocent, such a fact is always in front of everyone beyond doubt: In the United States, the two victims were killed in a very brutal way, and Nicole's head was almost cut off down, but the murderer has not been brought to justice.In other words, regardless of whether Simpson has found his "justice and fairness", the victim's justice and fairness must have not been done.

As a result, the entire United States can hardly escape a mental burden.Because in fact, everyone bears a heavy burden of "pursuing justice".People couldn't accept this fact. The "Trial of the Century" lasted for a year, but the suspect was acquitted, but the murderer was still unresolved. Even now, there are no more suspects.Of all people, the most overwhelmed are legal professionals.Because they know better than anyone the mechanism of the American judicial system, the reasons for maintaining this system and the price paid for it.They experience greater spiritual conflicts and shocks than others, because those painful prices are usually paid by their own hands.Soon after the verdict was pronounced in court, Judge Ito, who always gave the impression of being calm and composed, cried and comforted each other in his office with his wife, a police officer. Lawyers shaking hands.By this time, the prosecutor had already left.During that time, we watched the trial through the "Court" channel every day. Several young people on the "Court" channel did a great job of broadcasting, interviewing, and evaluating the case. After the verdict was pronounced, they were obviously heavy .When asked about their feelings, one of the young men said, I have been guarding this court for 9 months. I don’t know if I will still do this job in the future, but I know that after this trial, I will not be with the court again. It was exactly the same before, and America will never be exactly the same again.

A large number of people in society who believe that Simpson is guilty hope to find out who is responsible for this fallacy that seems incredible to them.Therefore, various criticisms followed.Some accused the jurors of being influenced by the defense lawyer's "racial incitement" and forgetting their sacred duties, because 9 of the jurors were black.Some guessed that they had been isolated in this case for too long, and they were in a hurry to go home, so they didn't deliberate seriously at all, and made a hasty judgment.The Chinese who are known as "technical" here think that the cultural level of the jurors is too low.In the middle of the jury, there are only 3 college graduates or above.They said, if all the 12 jurors were "veteran" with a doctorate or master's degree, would Simpson still be saved? …Among the various statements, "racist sentiment leads to misjudgment" and "Simpson's money buys justice" are the two most accused. Even Europe and other countries have heard similar criticisms.

As I write this, I would like to tell you a few interesting facts. You asked me in a recent letter, do you think Simpson is guilty?This is the question that is being asked, or being asked, by all of us throughout the year.The question has been raised over and over again at various points in the trial, when the prosecution has the upper hand and the defense has the upper hand.Later, especially after the Simpson case, it suddenly occurred to me that another question might be more meaningful.So, I started to ask all my friends, I first asked them, do you think Simpson is guilty?Most of them responded that they thought Simpson was guilty, and then I asked them, if you were a juror, would you convict him?For this question, some people are a little hesitant to answer, some people are very firm, most of them answered: no!

After Simpson's verdict, the newspapers have been heavily reporting that most blacks think he is innocent and most whites think he is guilty.Then the news media did another poll like this, and they asked, do you think Simpson got a fair trial?The vast majority of people, whether they were black or white, whether they thought Simpson was guilty or not, replied, yes, I think he got a fair trial. Also, throughout the trial process, news of discord among Simpson's "dream lawyers" appeared in the newspapers from time to time.Lawyer Shapiro, who was the most vocal at the beginning, obviously retreated from the protagonist's position, and later, he and the other two lawyers seemed to hardly talk to each other.Speaking after the verdict, Shapiro said, "My position has always been the same in the past, and that is that racial awareness will not and should not be a part of this case. But we not only played the race card, we put the It's playing trump card." Referring to Cocoran's comparison of Forman to Hitler, Shapiro said, "I'm very angry. I think the Holocaust is the most brutal human event in modern civilization. And the Holocaust is the most brutal human event in modern civilization. What Hitler did. In my opinion, it is wrong to compare Furman with such a vicious person." He said that the reference to Karcoran did not discuss with him in advance, and he will continue to do so in the future. There will be no such cooperation with Ka Kelun again.

What does all this mean? First of all, this "fantasy team" won, but it won't be glorious enough.In the newspaper the day after the sentencing, there were two photos from the Associated Press.One was titled, "Fantasy, Win!" and featured the lineup of Simpson's lawyers at a press conference after the verdict, while the other was titled, "No Time to Go, Disappointed!" The faces of prosecutors Clarke and Dutton during the sentencing.If there is no title, if you are asked to judge the winner or loser just based on the faces of these two photos, you will definitely be baffled.Because the victorious "Dream Team" has the same heavy face as the lost prosecutor.I believe they, as lawyers, as experts in their profession, know themselves, and know that their colleagues know, that they are not honored to win.They can fool the common people, but they cannot fool the discerning experts.

They shouldn't be "playing the race card," as Shapiro puts it.Just like on the court, some teams have "good style of play" and some teams have "bad style of play". Teams with bad style of play can also win. Some of their small actions may not be counted as fouls, but such Although the team won, it could not get the respect of fans and peers.It seems that Shapiro is indeed one of the highest-level lawyers, and also the one who cares most about professional ethics and professional responsibility.It is conceivable how fierce the legal team had been arguing when deciding on a defense strategy.But, unfortunately, Shapiro's opinion did not prevail.You might say, if you don't play the "race card", will you lose?The reason why Shapiro made such a statement at the end shows that he knows as well as all sensible people that if they don't do this, they will win.

Not playing the race card doesn't mean they didn't expose the fact that Furman lied during the initial trial, that Furman was racist and had no police ethics.It was these facts that gave the jury sufficient reason to question Furman as a witness and the evidence related to him.At the same time, Police Officer Feng's mistakes in obtaining evidence and keeping physical evidence, as well as the various doubts I introduced before still exist.Coupled with the legal requirements of the American judicial system for jury verdicts, the prosecution is over before the conclusion of the defense. These legal provisions enable jurors to distinguish as much as possible their personal guesswork from the legal judgments required by jury duty.So in fact, you can understand that such a situation is normal in the United States: as a juror, as an individual, he believes that the defendant is guilty, but as a juror, he thinks that the evidence of the prosecution is not enough, and he will vote to decide The defendant was "not guilty of all charges."This is also what I said earlier, the two questions my American friends asked me: "Do you think Simpson is guilty?" and "Would you convict him if you were a juror?" They would give different The reason for the answer. Simpson's jury, of course, has many different choices in terms of defense strategies.In the face of strong evidence from the prosecution, it is normal and expected that some people, considering the racial ratio of the jury, propose to play the "race card" in order to increase the insurance factor.But it's not about integrity and honour.This approach is not only irresponsible to witnesses, but also irresponsible to a multi-ethnic society.You may ask me, so did this card play a role?How big a role did it play?This reminds me of an article I once read and a discussion about it and people around me. This is an article advocating women's rights.It talks about that women's attitude towards people and their language are very different from men's. The author cites many women's idioms and analyzes their language characteristics, mainly its soft side.The author pointed out that this shows that women's long-term unequal status in society makes them gradually accustomed to modesty, flexibility and lack of self-confidence.However, when we discussed this issue, we found that women not only have different social status and social roles from men, but also obviously have psychological differences due to biological differences. These factors also affect her attitudes and social roles. language features.In the end, the result of everyone's debate is that, in fact, you can't completely distinguish which of the female language characteristics are caused by biological and psychological factors, and which are caused by social factors of long-term inequality between men and women of. In the jury of 12 jurors, I think, and will never be able to analyze clearly, how many people were affected by the defendant's lawyer's racial incitement.People's speculation and accusations don't tell the story, nor do jurors' denial of such accusations after they come out of court.Because, although the law has strict requirements on jurors, but, as I said, they are all living people.This is also the confusion that people often encounter when any legal society is trying to get to the bottom of it, because whether it is legislation or law enforcement, it is "people" who conduct it there.From the more than 200 years of implementation history of the US Bill of Rights that I introduced earlier, you can also see that in each historical stage, due to the different "people", the understanding and implementation are also different.However, judging from its entire implementation history, it is constantly moving towards its legislative intent, which is also a manifestation of the progress of American society itself.So, under the influence of the defendant's lawyer's "race card", did the Simpson jury's verdict approach the original intention of the legislation?The answer, I think, is yes. This is because the logic of the trial and judgment is clear despite the fog of the defendant's lawyer's "race card" covering the case.This is also the reason why there is no unanimous conclusion for any race in public opinion surveys, but the jury composed of 9 blacks, 2 whites and one Latino will have a unanimous conclusion.The judgment logic of jurors is different from that of the public.Moreover, as long as one of the 12 jurors disagrees, the jury cannot make a verdict of "not guilty".At the same time, this is also the reason why almost all people in the polls believe that Simpson received a "fair trial".This poll also shows us that in the United States, even ordinary people can clearly distinguish whether a person "has committed a crime and been convicted" from whether he has received a "fair trial".But for a person who doesn't understand the judicial system in the United States, this is a difficult reason to understand.They will think that if the murderer is convicted, then the trial is fair, and if the murderer is not convicted, the trial is of course unfair.How could the two be inconsistent? Of course, the judicial system of the United States also hopes to find criminals and to uphold "justice and fairness", but at the same time, it admits that it faces such a difficulty, that is, it cannot "judgment a good person if the case is complicated, Don’t let a single bad guy go.”Therefore, it is not mandatory to find the culprit.At the same time, it tends to "misplace" rather than "misjudgment" when it is difficult to judge a defendant.This is the principle that I have summed up before, "It is better to let go of a thousand than to kill one by mistake". .The interpretation of "not guilty" in the court is "the evidence is insufficient to convict", not "this person is innocent".Therefore, what it seeks above all is a "fair trial".During the trial process, the prosecution's "finding criminals" and "seeking justice" cannot be put on the table, and it cannot cause either party to overwhelm the other with moral strength.As long as the two parties reach a judgment through fair confrontation under the norms of the law, then this system believes that the "justice and fairness" of this society has been upheld.In the case of Simpson, I believe that this system requires the prosecution, that is, the party that intends to send a citizen to a life sentence prison, to provide evidence while taking evidence scientifically and rigorously; when providing witnesses, the witnesses must Must be reliable.Such a request should be said to be reasonable.Failure to meet this requirement means that the evidence is not sufficient, so you have nothing to say if you let the defendant go home. Such a judicial spirit is based on the Bill of Rights.Its starting point is to protect the freedom and rights of citizens from being violated.I have already introduced that the enactment of the Bill of Rights was aimed at the government, especially the federal government.It is mainly to prevent the U.S. government and government law enforcement officers from infringing on civil rights, and even abusing their power to frame civilians.A defendant, when he faces trial, he immediately faces a great strength.Here I would like to talk about Simpson's accusation of "money buys justice".Before the conclusion of the case, the Los Angeles government announced that up to that time, the prosecutorial department belonging to the government had spent $8,051,739, which of course came from local taxes.The cost does not include LAPD investigation expenses. From this, you can see that what I said about a civilian defendant facing a strong case is really not an easy topic.The police and prosecutors can use tens of millions of money to investigate and prosecute a civilian. They may be honest idealists like Lawyer Dutton, at least with rules; Mann is even worse than Forman, law enforcement offenders who have certain prejudices and no professional ethics are likely to be framed.Even an idealist may, under the guidance of a certain belief, attack a civilian who has different beliefs from him.And when a government, or a certain department of the government, for some reason, they dislike a certain individual or a certain group of civilians and want to "govern", they can use it in their hands, There is great financial power and the power that such financial power can mobilize, even though the money itself comes from the people.Therefore, you can see that if a civilian becomes a defendant, in the face of such a strong government, if there are low-quality law enforcement officers who do not follow the law and use this power to "bully others", then the defendant will be falsely accused and framed. The possibility of exaggerating the crime and being illegally humiliated is very high.If the Constitution and the judicial system have not clearly declared the protection of the legal rights of the accused, and resolutely enforced a "fair trial", what "justice and fairness" would there be in this society? Simpson did not disclose how much he spent on the lawsuit.But the general judgment is that he has already used up his money long ago.He must pay his debts with the money he will earn in the future.No matter how much money he spent, I think we must first figure out what the meaning of the unclear statement "money buys justice" is.What I want to ask is where did Simpson buy justice? Did he send money to prosecutors, judges or the police?Did you "buy" justice from them?Obviously not.He spent a huge sum of money, but what he bought was the lawyer's legal knowledge and legal services. With this money, he was able to collect evidence all over the country, and use this to fight the opponent fairly in court.I don't see any problem here.On the contrary, what needs to be done is not to suppress Simpson's "money buys justice", but to consider how to fund other civilians to "buy justice" in the same way. In the United States, work in this area must be done, because the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution clearly stipulates that the defendant has the right to "request the assistance of a lawyer in his defense." After "Detective Hunter" recited "You have the right to remain silent, if you give up this right, anything you say may become a testimony against you in court" to the caught suspect, it is to recite "You The right to a lawyer..." If a commoner cannot afford a lawyer, he will tell you that the court will appoint one for you.The Constitution stipulates that it is the defendant's right to seek counsel.In the United States, lawyers are a fee-based service industry. How to solve this contradiction?Generally, the court stipulates that lawyers must have a certain number of hours of voluntary service.This is where court-appointed attorneys come in.Civil organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, which I told you before, also provide free legal services to civilians, and they can often get some very good lawyers to serve as volunteers.For some civil cases, such as involving marriage, residence, welfare, etc., the US federal government has a federal legal service company that provides free lawyers to those who cannot afford them.The firm handled 1.7 million lawsuits last year.However, this company does not care about criminal cases. In the United States, a defendant can voluntarily waive your right to consult a lawyer, but cannot be forced to lose such right because of lack of money.In the Los Angeles fire last year, I don’t know how many people’s houses and forests were burned down. In the end, it was a Chinese who had just sneaked across the border from South America.However, he still has the right to a court-appointed lawyer, and in the end I remember the sentence was very short, although the damage caused was staggering, because he was burning a fire for warmth, it was a crime of negligence, and it does not mean that he is an illegal immigrant. exaggerate the crime, or increase the penalty. Court-appointed lawyers, of course, are not all like Shapiro, but if you have evidence that the court-appointed lawyers did not perform their duties, you can appeal and overturn the original verdict. I will tell you some stories like this later. .In any case, making all people able to obtain high-quality legal services is a job that the whole society must do step by step.Before this is really achieved, it should be said that the more people who can "buy justice", the more social progress it represents. In the United States, like other countries, a large number of ordinary civilians are kind. When they see crimes in society, they always hope that the law will be effective in punishing crimes.Some of them will also hope to "seriously, quickly, and strictly" so that this society can quickly settle down.At the same time, there are also some kind-hearted civilians who feel that criminal cases are always a matter of "fighting bad guys" and only "bad guys" will get involved, and they belong to the "good guys". Mistakes are made, and bad luck is also caused by bad people. It has nothing to do with me. I will never need a law to protect the defendant. But, in fact, the laws of a country are aimed at its people as a whole, and only when it is just to all people, can any "individual" be protected by the law under any circumstances and thus have a safe feel.On the contrary, if a society connives the careless treatment of some people who are considered to be "bad guys", it may appear that the interests of "good guys" are being safeguarded on the surface, but in fact, in this case, there is already an implicit penalty for everyone. A threat to a person's civil rights.In a certain climate, the "germs" that ignore and trample on civil rights will suddenly and rapidly grow at an unexpected speed, endangering every "individual", and "good guys" and "bad guys" will not be spared. The US Bill of Rights and the protection of the judicial system for defendants have not yet completely prevented unjust, false and wrongly decided cases.For example, assuming that Furman's tape is completely authentic, it mentions more than one case of poor quality police who fabricated perjury and framed the defendant.Once the Simpson case was over, the attorney general ordered an investigation into the LAPD.However, the design of the Bill of Rights and the judicial system is precisely to reduce this phenomenon as much as possible, and to prevent the possibility that a large number of people will die or be trapped in unjust prisons in the past, present, and future of the United States.One of its basic principles is not to use social security as an excuse to illegally deprive a citizen of his freedom and rights.The rationality of sacrificing any "individual" freedom and family happiness in exchange for social benefits is not recognized by the spirit of the US Constitution.It does not recognize that any kind of social demand can be higher than a citizen's demand for freedom, happiness and legal rights. I remember reading a joke a long time ago, saying that several people from different countries were talking about what is the happiest moment.Those happy moments talked about by people from Britain, France and the United States did not leave any impression on me. The one I still can't forget is a Soviet man from the era of Stalin's purge of counter-revolutionaries.He said that when you wake up in the morning with a knock on the door and you open the door to find a man standing in the doorway saying, "Ivan Ivanovich, you are under arrest," you can say to him, "I'm sorry, Ivanovich." Van Ivanovic lived next door", and this was the "happiest moment".When the power of the government is unlimited, so that the common people regard such moments as "happy moments", maybe there are few thieves on the street, the crime rate is very low, and the society is "stable". , the law absolutely does not protect bad people, but such a law also does not protect good people. There are also many controversies about the jury system in the United States.It appears to be the weakest link in the American justice system.Although I knew about this before, when I came to the United States, I found that they were actually "playing for real", randomly sampling, and there were all kinds of people who came, with different races and skin colors, regardless of whether they were employed or not. If you don't have culture, you don't have culture, and I feel that it's too suspenseful.In the United States, the most powerful is the legal team. There are many doctors of law. Why do we have to find a bunch of "laymen" to be "judges above judges"?What's more, this is a well-known "modern country", how can it be "backward" to the point of relying on "rabble" to judge cases?I once discussed juries with my friend Michael.He said that here, everyone who understands and agrees with this system knows its weaknesses. We never think it is a perfect system, we just can't find a better system than it.It's what Americans sometimes joke about: the jury system sucks if you don't compare it to other countries' systems. After the Simpson sentencing, President Clinton returned to his office after watching television and wrote the following statement: "The jury has heard the evidence and reached its verdict. Our judicial system demands that their decisions be respected. At this moment, we should think of Pray for the families of the victims of this terrible crime.” The U.S. Attorney General said after Simpson’s sentencing on the jury system, “I don’t see any basis for arguing that they (juries) need to be reformed. We've had juries for many, many years, and we should be very, very careful when considering changing that system." So, why do Americans choose the jury system alone among the many trial systems in the world, and why do they refuse to let it go?Of course, you also know that the jury system is not an invention of the Americans, it was born much earlier than the birth of the United States.In medieval England, the judiciary was quite dark, prisons were like hell, and torture abounded.After the twelfth century, the jury system was gradually established.After the independence of the United States, the founders affirmed the jury system as part of the constitution, and subsequent constitutional amendments made further supplements.Jefferson, the third president of the United States, believed that the trial system played a more important role in maintaining democracy than the right to vote.The legislative spirit of establishing such a system is to prevent the federal government and government officials from abusing their powers and trampling on the basic freedoms of the people. Of course, the jury system has obvious weaknesses. As I mentioned before, all "legal systems" will have the confusion of "human systems". The initial legislation, the trial process, and the final judgment all have the participation of "people" .After the predecessors made legislation, it is possible for future generations to amend it.In the process of law enforcement, different people have different interpretations of the legal provisions.You can see that some of the same legal provisions can be interpreted and implemented differently in different countries.In the Simpson case, the judge's handling of the specific situation is judged by a large number of legal experts every day.The final "decision of life and death" is always made by "people", be it a judge, a legal expert, or a jury.In the case of the Simpson case, we can see that although the lawyers of both sides have fully presented their own witness evidence, even legal experts make their own judgments. Different judges and different legal experts will still make judgments. Different results come. For example, as I mentioned earlier, Dr. Li, the nation's leading and world-renowned Chinese-American criminal science expert, kept ringing his office bell at the end of the trial, and news organizations across the United States lined up to get his opinion on the phone.He thought that he was not completely surprised by the verdict. He said that from a purely scientific point of view, the evidence of the Los Angeles prosecutors about Simpson was not convincing. The chronological order cannot be put together, and the basic logical basis has been lost.”He believes that Simpson is unlikely to kill two people in a very short period of time, and then go home to change clothes and destroy evidence.At the same time, he said that there are other material evidences that are also of great suspicion. For example, the first preservation and evidence collection process at the murder scene is extremely important. According to his professional standards, "the credibility of the prosecution's material evidence is extremely outrageous."However, we certainly believe that there are other legal experts who will have a completely different view. Therefore, it does not mean that it is absolute for legal experts to decide cases.After all, this is not a computer calculation problem. The information is entered, and when the button is pressed, the result comes out with a "snap".The design of the jury system emphasizes that the entire trial process is completely operated by professional lawyers in accordance with regulations, and the "fair trial process" is controlled by judges who are proficient in laws and regulations.When all the legal evidence that should be presented has been placed in front of everyone, and after the lawyers of both parties have said what they should say, they will then follow the instructions of the law to reach a consensus judgment.The design of this system argues that if everything is clear and obvious at a glance, ordinary people's intelligence is enough to judge.If the evidence is contradictory and questionable, the legal instructions for judging the case have clearly stipulated that in this case the defendant must be acquitted of the crime.The law also states that the trial will be declared a failure if everything is disputed.Therefore, at this time, the key issue is not whether the judge is a professional, but whether the judge is fair.This impartiality means that the adjudicator has absolutely no motive to frame the defendant, and is free from any other influence as far as possible, but only bases his judgment on the basis of evidence.When the United Kingdom, where the jury system originated, has not been used much, the reason why Americans insist on using the jury system instead of any other system is because the jury system has one of the biggest characteristics, that is, jurors are最不受任何人操纵控制的。 顺便我想告诉你，辛普森案的法庭里，作为被告的体育明星是一个公认的“大款”，名律师的报酬也大概超出了人们的想象力，检察官虽然是公职人员，年薪也应在二十万美元之上。伊藤法官的薪水我无法估计，只知道法庭配给他的那把椅子，就值六千美元。而法庭上的陪审员却只有一天几美元的补贴，他们出现在法庭上，与钱没有关系。在美国，被选上的人去法庭做陪审员，是一项必须去尽的公民义务，其重要性和服兵役一样。在大学里都有规定，凡是有陪审员任务的学生，可以不参加考试。 陪审员独立于政府之外，独立于司法系统之外，独立于任何政治势力之外。他们的判断，就是一般民众放在法律对陪审团的规定之下都会作出的判断。他们召之即来挥之即去，法庭为他们保密，使他们没有心理负担。他们只要自己不想出头露面，可以永远不被周围的人知道自己的角色。所以最没有除了他们应该考虑的证据之外，非考虑不可的其他因素。当然，这有一个基本条件，就是这个社会是自由的，普通民众是不受任何控制的。老百姓在一般的情况下，是象一盘散沙的，在没有和外国打仗的时候，是不拧成一股绳的。美国恰好就是这样一个国家。 所以，如果宪法和司法制度的出发点，是保护公民的自由，保护被告的合法权利，那么，陪审团制度确实有它难以替代的优越性。 我想起来就没法不觉得惊奇，你要知道，当初制定宪法和权利法案的那些美国开国者们，他们本身并不是“人民”，而是手中握有政府权力的当权者。二百二十年前的北美，还是一块非常野蛮的土地，动不动就要掏出枪来决斗的，却有这样的“思想”在那里闪闪发光。当时美国还很不稳定，各个州松松垮垮，自行其是。这些好不容易打下江山的开国元勋，不好好考虑考虑如何巩固政权稳定江山，把不听话的州都好好收拾一番，不认真严肃法纪政纪，该杀的杀该抓的抓，使社会迅速安定下来，却在那里担心手里的权会不会一不小心用过了头，担心即使自己小心翼翼没出什么岔子，自己的后任，甚至后任的后任会不会“走了火”。因此，开国伊始，他们认认真真讨论的头等大事，居然是如何立法保留老百姓手里的枪枝武器，保护他们的民间武装，让他们拥有最彻底的自由，甚至建立一个保护被告合法权利的司法制度。有了这么一个开头，你还想指望美国人看上去规规矩矩，整整齐齐吗？他们两百多年来，政府和老百姓，就这么乱中有序地互相习惯了。静下心来想想，真是觉得不可思议。 你一定记得前面的那些信里，每当我在一个方面回答了你的的问题，介绍了美国人所拥有的自由和权利，我就要同时告诉你，他们为此支付了什么样的代价。让你对这些代价有清楚的了解，是我写这些信的真正出发点。我们在世界各地，在不同的时代，都看到过这样的情况，总有一些人在不同的情况下，向那些对于各种需求饥肠碌碌的民众，描绘不同食谱的美味午餐。于是这些人有了众多的追随者，甚至在他们的帮助下成就了自己的事业。这时候，有两种不同的情况往往会不幸地冒出来。一种情况是，这是一份虚假的许诺，人们被土豆加牛肉的食谱所吸引，得到的午餐却是树皮加草根，令人大失所望。另一种更普遍的情况是，这是一份真实的午餐，可是，当人们被引到餐桌前，才发现一个早该想到的简单真理，世界上没有免费的午餐。他们还未享受到，已经先被昂贵的代价所吓倒，不知那个当初引他们走向餐桌的家伙是有意还是还是无意，他竟然从来没有提起过这样的代价。this is not fair. 辛普森回家了，也是坐的白色汽车，电视一路跟踪，顶上有十二架直升飞机在追随，使人想起一年前的追捕场面。他跑了，永远地跑了。就是你明天发现一把凶刀，上面有他清清楚楚的血手印，就是明天有人拿出一盘录像带，上面有辛普森杀人的全过程，也统统没有用。检察官再也不可能向他提出另一场起诉，因为在美国的宪法修正案的第五条里，有这样一句话，“人民不得为同一罪行而两次被至于危及生命或肢体之处境”，这在美国的法律术语中叫做“两次困境”，将一个公民置于“两次困境”是违宪的。权利法案的这一条，限制了政府的执法人员对一个公民无休无止的纠缠。因为宪法的制定者认为，必须防止这样的情况：一个执法人员没有充分证据却要判一个人有罪，当陪审团宣布“罪名不成立”之后，执法人员不甘心，明天弄到一点什么，重新起诉，后天有些借口，又重新起诉，反正你别想太平。禁止“两次困境”就彻底杜绝了这种可能。对于一个罪行，刑事起诉只以一次为限。要成功，检察官就必须在一次起诉中成功。如果被判无罪释放了，只有当他又一次犯罪被你抓住，你才可能再一次对他起诉，否则，你只能看着他永远地逃离你的手掌心。 但是，当人们以复杂的心情，又一次在电视里，看着一辆载着辛普森的白色汽车在公路上向家里开去的时候，宪法保障公民所拥有自由和权利的代价是非常清楚的。如果辛普森是有罪的，他已经永远地逃脱了。“宁可放过一千，不可错杀一个”，这里，不错判错杀一个无辜公民的代价，就是可能有一千个罪犯被放跑了。这种代价是多方面的，不论从哪一方面去探究，都是沉重的。 如果辛普森是杀人凶手，两名被害人的公道就再也无法讨还，正义再也无法得到伸张，老高德曼苍凉悲愤的声音将永远使有良心的美国人不得安宁。在“放掉一千”的同时，人们必须面对许许多多被害人哭泣的冤魂。人们将时时会怀疑，他们在检察官输掉一场场官司的时候，他们是不是象老高德曼所指责的，正在输掉一个国家？ 如果辛普森是凶手的话，他放回家之后，大概也不会再去杀人。但是，谁能保证那些由于没有足够证据而被放掉的“一千”，甚至远不止一千的嫌疑犯，回家以后会干些什么呢？“放”得越多，当然危险就越大，社会就越不安宁，这几乎是最简单的一个逻辑。每一个人都在为此支付代价。 实际上，美国人为了公民的自由和权利，除了付出精神上和安全上的巨大代价之外，他们人人还在付出金钱的代价。你已经看到了，辛普森一案，仅仅审理费用就达八百多万美元，如果加上警方调查取证的费用，不会低于一千万美元。你不要以为这是因为辛普森是名人，才审得时间特别长。加里佛尼亚州的一个华人妻子，被控谋杀丈夫来自大陆的情人和她的孩子，已经审了很久，被华裔称为“小辛普森案”，目前已经宣告陪审员无法达成一致意见，一审失败，案子悬搁。由于检察官不肯放弃，最近即将开始重新审理，至少又是一倍的时间。这个时间当然就是金钱。不管最终的判决将是什么，陪审员应该说是谨慎的，他们至少不会因为涉案的都是外国人和少数民族，就草草判掉算了。他们当然不但知道重新审判要花钱，还知道钱是从哪里来的。这些钱是从哪里来的呢？我以前已经告诉过你，美国政府不拥有任何企业，它的每一分钱都是老百姓，包括这些陪审员，交给政府的税金。 从今天的报纸上，我们看到，爱荷达州的一名中国留学生被控两个一级谋杀罪。他杀害了同是从中国来的一对留学生夫妇。他一直没有认罪，检方在起诉的时候要求判他死刑，在开审前的最后时刻，他终于认罪了。我曾提到过，在这种情况下，他可以得到法庭给他的一个交换条件，换取一个略轻一些的刑罚。结果他有可能被判处不得假释的无期徒刑。当记者采访死者家属的时候，他们谈到很不理解美国的司法制度。对于中国人，杀人偿命，一命抵一命，是最自然不过的事情。对于美国人来说，一种罪行有一个量刑的上下限。在这个限度之内，都是合理的。罪犯认罪，可以省下大量的人力财力，在限度之内的减刑是可以接受的。我想被害者家属也一定没有想到，案子拖长的话，有可能耗去美国老百姓辛苦工作挣来的成百万，成百万的美元。事实上，美国人依然要用自己的税金把他养在牢里，尽管不论是凶手还是被害者，都不是美国人。他们为这块土地选择了这样的原则，就必须为这块土地上发生的一切支付代价。有时候，这个代价是指金钱，有时候，这个代价，甚至是生命。 明确了代价之后，仍然选择尊重公民的权利和自由为最高目标，这是需要勇气的。而且，有时候，甚至可以说，必须是有能力支付代价才能得到的。 这封信写得够长的了。很想念你，来信。 wish it is good! Linda