Brother Lu: Hello!
I remember that on the night the Simpson case was announced, I started writing about this case for you. I still remember the shock that everyone around me experienced 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 that day, my friends around me and I spent a very restless morning. I once went through an American election, and people waiting for the result of the new president’s election were far less tense. The press reported afterwards that in the ten minutes before and after the announcement, people across the United States almost stopped all activities, did not work, did not go to school, did not call, did not go to the bathroom, and everyone was listening to Simpson’s sentence.圌decision. At Hartsford International Airport in Atlanta, everyone was watching TV, which delayed the boarding of several Delta Air Lines flights. A staff member who was ignorant of current affairs urged everyone to board the plane at the critical moment when the sentence was pronounced. The result was more than 100. The passengers yelled at her and told her to "shut up". At the bank in Miami, the teller stopped counting money, the long queue 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. By one ten ten, the word "Simpson was found not guilty for all crimes" was printed on the board showing the stock price. The transaction returned to normal. The Chicago Board of Trade, which is usually full of deafening shouts of traders, was completely silent during the few minutes when the sentence was pronounced. High-ranking officials in the Federal Government of the capital, it is usually difficult for them to admit that there are things that are more important than their official business at hand, but on this day, various agencies and departments were almost closed, from the White House to Congress and various federal departments. Many briefings, hearings, and press conferences on national policies that are scheduled to be held at one o'clock in the afternoon are either postponed or cancelled, just to wait for Simpson's trial. People use various methods to get news. The bicycle postman in the capital used radio to get the results from the company dispatcher, yelling all the way to tell pedestrians.
This is an extraordinary moment in the United States, beyond the imagination of Americans themselves. The most diverse and the most diverse Americans are actually the same in the country at the same moment. Thousands of people are doing exactly the same thing in different places. "All routine things are taken by great curiosity. Engulf".
Although I, like many Americans, have thought that this will be the result, I, like them, have been unable to recover from the huge shock for a long time. This verdict contains too much content.
The trial had just ended, and the prosecution and the families of both parties immediately held press conferences. Simpson's son read a statement from his father. He stated that "it will be the most important goal of his life to capture the murderer of Nicole and Goldman." The prosecution and the victim's family members can almost be described as "tragic and strong" in front of TV cameras. The prosecution’s lawyers embraced the victim’s family affectionately, expressing gratitude and comfort to each other. Looking at the "team spirit" displayed by this lawyer group is indeed very moving. Although they are a "team" that lost in a "critical competition", you see that they are still united and share the disappointment and pain with each other. The lead female prosecutor Clark highly praised and thanked his colleagues. During this year, they all paid a great price. Clark herself also lost her custody of her children because of working day and night. The last time the old Goldman spoke with a trembling voice, oscillating in every corner of the United States: "June 13, 1994 was the day when the worst nightmare in my life fell, and today is the second nightmare. Today, and It was not the prosecutor who lost the lawsuit. It was this country that failed today. Justice and justice have not been upheld.” The
defense lawyer’s “racial strategy” at the end of the debate has made the case’s impact on society less important. May not have a strong ethnic color. Many blacks who believed in Simpson's innocence happily celebrated that "justice and justice have been served." In street interviews on TV, many whites expressed disappointment. However, this division is not absolute. People who are slightly sensible are making their own judgments on this case based on their analysis and intuition, not based on their own ethnic affiliation. In fact, regardless of whether it is black, white or other races, they still have different conclusions on this issue. Most Americans still believe that Simpson killed someone after the sentence was judged. The problem is, regardless of whether Simpson is guilty or innocent, the fact is always unquestionably placed in front of everyone: in the United States, the two victims were killed in a very cruel way, and Nicole's head was almost cut off. Came down, but the murderer did not come to justice. In other words, regardless of whether Simpson found his "justice and justice", the victim's justice and justice must have not been done yet.
Therefore, almost the entire United States cannot be freed from a mental burden. Because in fact, everyone is carrying a heavy burden of "pursuing justice". People cannot accept this fact. The trial of the "Century Trial" lasted for a year, but the suspect was declared not guilty, but the murderer still had no results, and even now there are no more suspects. Among all the people, the most overwhelmed are legal workers. 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 mental conflicts and shocks than others. This is because those painful costs are usually paid through their hands and personally. Soon after the court’s sentence was pronounced, Judge Ito, who had always given the impression of calmness and composure, couldn’t help crying and comforting each other in his office with his wife, who was a police officer. It took a long time before he calmed down and returned to the court and the defense. Lawyers shake hands. At 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 in a heavy heart. . Asked about their feelings, one of the young people said that I have been in this court for 9 months. I don’t know if I will do this job in the future, but I know that after this trial, I won’t be with you anymore. It was exactly the same before, and the United States will no longer be exactly the same as before.
A large number of people in society who think Simpson is guilty want to find the person responsible for this inconceivable fallacy. Therefore, various criticisms followed one after another. Some accused the jurors of being influenced by the "racial incitement" of the defense lawyers, forgetting their sacred duty, because 9 of the jury were black. It is also estimated that they had been isolated for too long in this case and were anxious to go home, so they did not seriously discuss it at all, and made a hastily judgment. The Chinese, who are known for their "technical type" here, think that the educational level of the jurors is too low. Among the jury, there are only three with a university degree or above. They said that if the 12 jurors were all "old middle school" with Ph.D. or master's degree, would Simpson still be saved? …Among all the arguments, “racist sentiment leads to misjudgment” and “Simpson’s money to buy justice” are the two most common accusations, and similar criticisms have spread even in Europe and other countries.
At this point, I want to tell you a few interesting situations first.
You asked me in a recent letter, do you think Simpson is guilty? In this year, all people in the United States are asking or being asked this question by others. At different stages of the trial of the case, when the prosecution had the upper hand, and the defense had the upper hand, this issue was raised over and over again. Later, especially after the verdict in the Simpson case, I suddenly discovered that another issue might be more meaningful. So, I started asking all my friends around me, I asked them first, do you think Simpson is guilty? Most of them replied that they thought Simpson was guilty, and then I asked them if you were a juror, would you convict him? Some people hesitate to answer this question, while others are very firm. Most of them answered: No!
After Simpson was sentenced, there have been numerous reports in the newspapers that most of the blacks believed that he was innocent, and most of the whites believed that he was guilty. Then the news media did such a poll again, and they asked, do you think Simpson was given a fair trial? The vast majority of people, whether he is black or white, whether he thinks Simpson is guilty or not guilty, replied, yes, I think he received a fair trial.
Also, during the entire trial process, news of discord between Simpson's "Dream Lawyers" has been reported from time to time. At first, the lawyer Shapiro, who had the highest voice, had obviously retreated from the protagonist's position, and later, he and the other two lawyers seemed to barely talked with each other. After the verdict, Shapiro said in a statement, "My position has always been the same in the past, that is, racial awareness will not, and should not be a part of this case. However, we not only played the racial card, And play it as a trump card.” Speaking of Cacolon’s comparison of Furman to Hirtchaule, Shapiro said, “I’m very angry. I think the Nazi Holocaust is the best in modern civilization. A brutal human incident. And the Nazi massacre was something that Hirut had done. In my opinion, it is wrong to compare Ferman with such a vicious person." He Speaking of, this formulation of Kakolan has not been discussed with him in advance, and he will never have such cooperation with Kakoran in the future.
What does all this show?
First of all, this "fantasy team" won, but it was not honoured enough to win. In the newspaper on the second day of the sentence, there were two photos of the United States Association. One has the title, "Dream Team, Won!", the photo shows the lineup of the Simpsons at the press conference after the verdict, and the other has the title, "I’m busy, let’s be disappointed!" The expressions of prosecutor Clark and Dutton when they were sentenced. If there is no title, if you are asked to judge whether you win or lose based only on the faces of these two photos, you must be inexplicable. Because the victorious "dream team" has the same heavy face as the losing prosecutor. I believe that as lawyers, as experts in this industry, they know it themselves, and they know that their peers also know that they are not honorable for winning. They can fool the common people, but they can't fool the discerning experts.
As Shapiro said, they should not "play the race card." Just like on the court, some teams have "good style" and some have "bad style". Teams with bad style can also win. Some of their small moves may not be counted as fouls, but this is the case. Although the team won, it could not be respected by fans and colleagues. It seems that Shapiro is indeed the highest level of this lawyer team, and also the one who takes into account professional ethics and professional responsibility the most. It is conceivable that when deciding on the defense strategy, the lawyer team had so fiercely argued. 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 is as clear as all the sensible people. Otherwise, they will win.
Not playing the racial card does not mean that they will not expose the fact that Furman lied at the initial trial stage, and the fact that Furman has racist tendencies and does not have the professional ethics of police surveillance. It is these facts that give the jury sufficient reasons to question the witness and the evidence related to him. At the same time, police officer Feng's mistakes in collecting evidence and keeping physical evidence, as well as the various doubts I have introduced before, still exist. Coupled with the legal requirements of the U.S. judicial system for jury verdicts, the prosecution has gone before the conclusion of the defense.
These legal provisions allow the jurors to distinguish their personal guesses as much as possible from the legal judgments required by the duties of the jurors. Therefore, in fact, you can understand that this situation is normal in the United States: the juror, as an individual, believes that the defendant is guilty, but as a juror, he believes that the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient, and he will vote for the verdict The defendant was "not guilty". This is also what I said earlier. My American friends asked me two questions: "Do you think Simpson is guilty?" and "If you are a juror, will he be convicted?" They will give different questions. The reason for the answer.
Simpson's jury, of course, has many different choices in defense strategy. In the face of strong evidence from the prosecution, it is normal and expected that some people considered the race ratio of the jury and proposed to play the "race card" in order to increase the insurance coefficient. But this is not honest and glorious. This approach is not only an irresponsibility for the witnesses, but also an irresponsibility for a multi-ethnic society. You may ask me, does this card work? What effect did it play? This reminds me of an article I have read, and the discussion about this article and the people around me.
This is an article advocating women's rights. It mentioned that women’s attitudes towards people and their language are very different from those of men. The author cited many women’s idioms and analyzed its language features, mainly its soft side. The author points out that this shows that women's unequal status in society for a long time has made them gradually accustomed to being humble, flexible and lacking self-confidence. However, when we were discussing this issue, we found that women not only have different social status and social roles from men, but obviously also have psychological differences due to physical differences. These factors also affect her attitudes and attitudes. Language characteristics. In the end, the result of everyone’s argument is that, in fact, you can’t fully discern which of the language characteristics of women are caused by physical and psychological factors, and which ones are caused by the social factors of long-term inequality between men and women. of.
In the jury composed of 12 jurors, I think it will never be possible to analyze clearly how many people have been affected by the racial incitement of the defendant's lawyers. People's speculation and accusations cannot explain this problem, nor can the denial of such accusations by jurors after they come out of the court. Because, although the law has strict requirements on jurors, as I said before, they are all big people. This is also the confusion that people often encounter when any legal society is chasing down the bottom line, because whether it is legislation or law enforcement, it is "people" who conduct it there. From the 200-year history of the implementation of the US Bill of Rights that I introduced earlier, you can also see that at each historical stage, due to different "persons", the understanding and implementation conditions are also different. However, judging from its entire history of implementation, it is constantly advancing to its legislative intent, which is also a manifestation of the progress of American society itself. So, under the influence of the defendant's lawyers "race card", the Simpson jury's verdict approaches the original intent of the legislation? I think the answer is yes.
This is because the logic of the trial and judgment is clear after removing the fog that the defendant's lawyer "race card" put on this case. This is also the reason why there is no unanimous conclusion of any race in the public opinion survey, but the jury composed of 9 blacks, 2 whites and a 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 will not be able to make a verdict of "not guilty". At the same time, this is also the reason why almost everyone in the polls believes that Simpson received a "fair trial." This public opinion survey also showed us that in the United States, even ordinary people will clearly distinguish whether a person has “convicted and been convicted” from whether he has received a “fair trial”. But for someone who does not understand the American judicial system, this is a difficult truth to figure out. They will think that if the murderer is convicted, then the trial is fair and the murderer has not been convicted. Of course, the trial is unfair. How can there be discrepancies between the two?
Of course, the U.S. judicial system hopes to find criminals and to do "justice and justice," but at the same time, it admits that it faces such a difficulty that in the complex circumstances of the case, it cannot do "good judgement for a good person." Don’t let a bad guy go.” Therefore, it does not insist on finding the culprit. At the same time, when it is difficult to judge a defendant, it tends to "misplace" rather than "misjudgment." This is the principle of "I would rather let go of a thousand than kill one by mistake" that I previously summed up. The interpretation of "unacceptable" in court is "the evidence is insufficient to be convicted", not "the person is innocent." Therefore, it first seeks a "fair trial." During the trial, the prosecution's "search for criminals" and "seek justice" cannot be put on the table and cannot cause either party to overwhelm the other with moral strength. As long as the two parties reach a judgment through fair competition under the norms of the law, then this system believes that the "justice and justice" of this society has been upheld. In the case of Simpson, I believe that this system requires that the prosecutor, that is, the party who intends to send a citizen to life imprisonment, must provide evidence while collecting evidence must be scientific and rigorous; when providing witnesses, witnesses 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 put the defendant back home.
This judicial spirit is based on the Bill of Rights. Its starting point is to protect the freedom and rights of citizens from infringement. I have already introduced that the enactment of the bill of rights is 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 the rights of citizens, or even abusing their powers to frame civilians. A defendant, when he faced trial, he immediately faced a great strength. Here I want to talk about Simpson's accusation of "money buys justice". Before the case was concluded, the Los Angeles Municipal Government announced that up to that time, the prosecution department belonging to the State Government had spent US$8,051,739. Of course, the money came from the local government. tax. This fee does not include the investigative expenses of the Los Angeles Police Department.
From here, you can see that what I said about a civilian defendant facing strength is really not an easy topic. The police and prosecutors can use millions of dollars to investigate and prosecute a civilian. They may be idealists who look upright like Darton lawyers, at least there are rules and laws. ; It is also possible that like Forman is even worse than Forman, there is a certain prejudice and no professional ethics in law enforcement and criminals, framed and planted are possible. Even an idealist, guided by a certain belief, may strike a civilian who is different from his beliefs. And when a government or a certain department of a government, for some reason, they dislike a certain individual or a certain group of civilians, and they want to "rule", they have What can be used is huge financial resources and the power that such financial resources can mobilize, even though the money itself comes from the people. Therefore, you can see that if a civilian becomes a defendant, in front of a strong government like the government, if there is a low-quality law enforcement officer who violates the law, and uses this strong "to bully", then the defendant will be falsely accused and be accused. The possibility of framing, being exaggerated, and being illegally abused is very high. If the Constitution and the judicial system have not clearly declared the protection of the defendant's legal rights and resolutely implement the "fair trial", what "justice and justice" can there be in this society?
Simpson did not disclose how much money he spent to deal with this lawsuit. But the general judgment is that he has already used up his money. He must use the money he earns in the future to pay off his debts. No matter how much money he spends, I think the first thing to do is to figure out what is being blamed for the ambiguous phrase "money buys justice". What I want to ask is where did Simpson buy justice? Did he send money to the prosecutor, the judge or the police? Did you "buy" justice from them? Obviously this is not the case. 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 from all over the country and use this money to fight the opponent fairly in court. I don't see any problems here. On the contrary, what needs to be done is not to suppress Simpson's "money to buy justice", but to consider how to fund other civilians to "buy justice" in the same way.
In the United States, this work must be done, because the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution clearly stipulates that the defendant has the right to "request a lawyer to assist in his defense." "Detective Hunter" recites "You have the right to remain silent, if you give up this right, anything you say may become testimony against you in court" to the arrested suspect. It is to recite" You have the right to hire a lawyer..." If a civilian cannot afford a lawyer, then he will tell you that the court will assign you a lawyer. The constitution stipulates the right to hire a lawyer as the defendant. In the United States, lawyers have a fee-based service industry. How can this contradiction be resolved? Generally, the court stipulates that lawyers must have a certain number of hours of voluntary service. This is where the court assigns lawyers. The civil organizations like the "American Citizens Freedom Alliance" that I told you before also provide free legal services to civilians, and they often get some very good lawyers for voluntary services. For some civil cases, such as marriage, domicile, welfare, etc., the U.S. Federal Government has a federal legal service company that provides free lawyers for those who cannot afford a lawyer. The company handled 1.7 million lawsuits last year. However, this company does not care about criminal cases.
In the United States, a defendant can voluntarily give up your right to ask for assistance from a lawyer, but you cannot be forced to lose this right because you have no money. Last year, the Los Angeles fire burned many houses and forests, and it turned out that it was a Chinese who had just crossed the border from South America. However, he still has the right to have a lawyer assigned to him by the court. In the end, I remember that the sentence was very short. Although the loss was staggering, he was a crime of negligence because he was burning fire for heating. It cannot be just because he is an illegal immigrant. Exaggerate the crime, or increase the punishment.
Of course, the lawyers appointed by the court will not all resemble Shapiro, but if you have evidence that the lawyer assigned to you by the court is not fulfilling your duties, you can appeal accordingly and overturn the original sentence. I will tell you something like this later. s story. In any case, enabling all people to receive high-quality legal services is a work that the entire society must do gradually. Before this is truly achieved, it should be said that the greater the number of people who can "buy justice", the more social progress is shown.
In the United States, like other countries, a large number of ordinary civilians are kind. When seeing crimes in society, they always hope that the law will be effective in punishing crimes. Some of them also hope to "heavily, quickly, and strictly" so that the 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 "strike the bad guys", and only the "bad guys" can get involved, and they belong to the category of "good guys", with severe penalties and quick judgments. , Even if an error occurs, it will cause bad luck for the bad guys. It has nothing to do with yourself, and you will never need a law to protect the defendant.
However, in fact, the law of a country is aimed at its entire people. Only when it is fair to all people, can any "individual" be protected by the law under any circumstances and thus have security. feel. On the contrary, if a society indulges hasty treatment of some people who are considered to be "bad guys," it may seem that it is protecting the interests of "good guys." A threat to a person’s civil rights. Under certain climates, the "germs" that ignore and trample on the rights of citizens will suddenly and rapidly grow at an unexpected rate, endangering every "individual", and "good people" and "bad people" will not be spared.
The United States’ bill of rights and the protection of the judicial system for defendants have not yet been able to completely prevent unjust, false and wrong cases. For example, if Forman’s tapes are completely authentic, there will be more than one case in which poor quality police officers fabricated perjury and framed the defendant. Once the Simpson case was over, the Chief of Justice ordered an investigation into the Los Angeles Police Department. However, the bill of rights and the judicial system are designed to reduce this phenomenon as much as possible, and to prevent the possibility of a large number of people dying or trapped in unjustified prisons in the past, present and future in 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. Sacrificing any "individual" right of freedom and family happiness in exchange for social benefits is not recognized by the constitutional spirit of the United States. It does not recognize that any social requirement can be higher than a citizen's requirement for self-sustaining happiness and legal rights.
I remember I read a joke a long time ago, saying that several people from different countries were talking about the happiest moment. Those happy moments talked about by people from Britain, France, and the United States did not leave any impression on me. What I still remember is a Soviet from the period of Lin Su's opposition in Siwei. He said that when you were awakened by a knock on the door in the morning, you opened the door and found someone standing at the door saying, "Ivan Ivanovich, you are arrested", but you can say to him, "I'm sorry, I Van Ivanovic lives next door", this is "the happiest moment". When there are no restrictions on the rights of the government, so much so that the people will regard such moments as "happy moments", maybe there are very few thieves on the street, the crime rate is very low, and the society is " "Stable", the law absolutely does not protect the bad guys, but such a law also does not protect the good guys.
The jury system in the United States is also very controversial. It is the weakest link in the American judicial system. Although I knew this was the case before, when I arrived in the United States, I discovered that they were actually "playing real". Random samples were drawn. There were all kinds of people who came here, with different races and skin colors, regardless of whether there is a career or not. Knowledge is knowledge. If there is no culture, there is no culture, and I think it is enough. In the United States, the strongest is the legal team. There are a lot of doctors of law. Why do you want to find a bunch of "laymen" to be "judges above the judges"? What's more, this is a well-known "modern country", how can it be "backward" to the point of relying on the "rabbit crowd" to judge cases? I once discussed the jury with my friend Michael. He said, here, everyone who understands and approves of this system knows its weaknesses. We never think it is a perfect system, we just can't find a better system than it. This is exactly like what the Americans sometimes jokingly say: If you don't compare the jury system with other countries' systems, it really sucks.
After the Simpson case was pronounced, President Clinton finished watching TV and returned to the office to write the following statement: "The jury has heard the evidence and made its verdict. Our judicial system requires respect for their decision. At this moment, we I should think of the families of the victims of this terrible crime and pray for them.” The Chief of the U.S. Department of Justice made such a speech about the jury system after Simpson’s sentence, “I have not found any conviction that they (the jury) need reform. We have had a jury for many years. We should be very, very careful when considering changing this system."
Then, why do Americans choose the jury system alone among the many trial systems in the world, and they are not willing to let it go? Of course, you also know that the jury system is not an American invention. It was born far before the birth of the United States. In medieval England, the judicial system was quite dark, and prisons were like hells. After the twelfth century, a jury system was gradually established. After the independence of the United States, the founders of the country affirmed the jury system as part of the constitution, and subsequent constitutional amendments have made further supplements. The third president of the United States, Jefferson, believed that this kind of trial system is more important than the right to vote in safeguarding the role of the democratic lords. To establish such a system, its legislative spirit is to prevent federal government and government officials from abusing their powers and trampling on the basic freedom of the people.
Of course, the jury system has obvious weaknesses. I have mentioned that all "legal systems" will have the confusion of "personal system". The initial legislation, the trial process, and the final judgment all have "people" involved. . After the predecessors enacted legislation, it is possible for future generations to amend it. In the process of law enforcement, different people have different interpretations of legal provisions. As you can see, some of the same legal provisions can be explained and implemented in different countries very irrelevant. In the trial of the Simpson case, the judge's handling of specific situations was judged by a large number of legal experts every day. The final "determination of life and death" is always made by "people", whether it is a judge, a legal expert, or a jury. In the case of the Simpson case, we have seen that although the lawyers of both parties have fully produced 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, Dr. Li, the world-renowned expert on criminal science of Chinese descent in the United States, I mentioned earlier. At the end of the trial, the ringing of his office remained unbroken. News organizations across the United States lined up to get to know him on the phone. view. He believed 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 Public Prosecutor’s Department on Simpson was not convincing. The most important key was the prosecution’s The defendant committed the crime "the chronological order could not be gathered together, and the basic logical basis was lost." He believes that Simpson is unlikely to kill two people in a very short period of time, and then go home and change clothes to destroy the evidence. He also stated that there are other material evidences that have major suspicions. For example, the first preservation and collection process at the murder scene is extremely important. According to his professional standards, "the credibility of the prosecutor's material evidence is extremely outrageous." However, we certainly believe that there are other legal experts who have completely different views.
Therefore, it is not to say that it is absolute for legal experts to decide the case. This is not a computer arithmetic problem after all, input the information, press the button, "pop" the result will come out. 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 proficient in laws and regulations. When all the legal evidence that should be presented has been put in front of everyone, and the lawyers of both sides have said everything that should be said, then they will follow the instructions of the law on the judgment to come up with a consensus judgment. The design argument of this system believes that if everything is clear and clear at a glance, ordinary people’s intelligence is sufficient to judge. If the evidence is contradictory and in doubt, the legal instructions for the judgment have clearly stipulated that in this case the defendant must be sentenced to "not guilty." If everything is controversial, the law also stipulates that the trial will fail. Therefore, at this time, the key question is no longer whether the judge is a professional, but whether the judge is fair. This fairness means that the judge has absolutely no motive to frame the defendant, and will not be affected by any other influence as much as possible, but only based on evidence to make the judgment. At a time when the United Kingdom, where the jury system originated, was not used much, the reason why Americans insisted on using the jury system instead of any other system is because the jury system has one of the biggest characteristics, that is, the jurors are The least controlled by anyone.
By the way, I want to tell you that in the court of the Simpson case, the defendant sports star is a recognized "big money", and the remuneration of a lawyer is probably beyond people's imagination. Although the prosecutor is a public official, the annual salary is also It should be above $200,000. I can’t estimate Judge Ito’s salary. I only know that the chair rationed by the court is worth six thousand dollars. The jurors in the court only have a few dollars a day in subsidies. They appear in the court and have nothing to do with money. In the United States, it is a civic duty that the selected person goes to the court to serve as a juror, and its importance is the same as that of military service. There are regulations in universities that all students who have the task of jury do not need to take the exam.
The jurors are independent of the government, independent of the judicial system, and independent of any political forces. Their judgment is the judgment that ordinary people will make under the law on jury. They come and go as soon as they are called, and the court keeps them secret, so that they have no psychological burden. As long as they don't want to show up, they can never be known about their role by those around them. So there are no other factors that must be considered besides the evidence they should consider. Of course, there is a basic condition for this, that is, this society is free and ordinary people are not under any control. Under normal circumstances, ordinary people are like a plate of loose sand, and when they are not at war with foreign countries, they are not twisted into a rope. The United States happens to be such a country.
Therefore, if the starting point of the constitution and judicial system is to protect the freedom of citizens and protect the legal rights of the defendant, then the jury system does have its irreplaceable advantages.
When I think about it, I can’t help but feel surprised. You have to know that the founders of the United States who formulated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not the “people” themselves, but those in power who held the power of the government. Two hundred and two ten years ago, North America was still a very savage land. People who had to take out their guns to fight each other at every turn, but there were such "thoughts" gleaming there. At that time, the United States was still very unstable, and the states were loose and loose. These founding fathers who have finally won the country, do not think about how to consolidate political power and stabilize the country, and clean up the disobedient states. They are not serious about law and government. When I came down, I was worried that the power in my hand would accidentally overuse it, and worried that even if I did nothing wrong, my successor, and even his successor, would "get away." Therefore, at the beginning of the founding of the country, the most important thing they seriously discussed was how to legislate to retain the guns and weapons in the hands of the people, protect their civilian armed forces, so that they have the most complete freedom, and even establish a way to protect the legal rights of the defendant. Judicial system. With such a beginning, do you still want to expect Americans to look neat and tidy? For more than two hundred years, the government and ordinary people have become accustomed to each other in such a chaotic and orderly manner. Quitting down and thinking about it, it really feels incredible.
You must remember the previous letters. Whenever I answered your question in one aspect and introduced the freedom and rights that Americans have, I will tell you at the same time what price they paid for it. . Letting you have a clear understanding of these costs is the real starting point for me to write these letters. We have seen such a situation in various places in the world and in different times. There are always people who, under different circumstances, describe delicious lunches with different recipes to people who are hungry for various needs. As a result, these people have a large number of followers, and even achieved their own careers with their help. At this time, there are two different situations that will unfortunately emerge. In one case, this is a false promise. People are attracted by the potato and beef recipe, but the lunch they get is bark and grass roots, which is disappointing. Another more common situation is that this is a real lunch, but when people are led to the table, they discover a simple truth that should have been thought of long ago. There is no free lunch in the world. They have not yet enjoyed it, and they have been frightened by the expensive price. I don't know if the guy who led them to the table in the first place was intentional or unintentional. He had never mentioned such a price. this is not fair.
Simpson went home, also in the white car. The TV followed all the way. Twelve helicopters were following him on top, which reminded people of the hunting scene a year ago. He ran, ran forever. That is, you will find a murderous knife tomorrow with his clear bloody handprint on it, or tomorrow someone will take out a videotape with the whole process of Simpson's murder on it, and it is all useless. It is no longer possible for the prosecutor to file another prosecution against him, because in Article 5 of the U.S. Constitutional Amendment, there is a sentence: "People shall not be threatened with life or body twice for the same crime. Situation" is called "two dilemmas" in American legal jargon. It is unconstitutional to put a citizen in "two dilemmas". This article of the bill of rights restricts the endless entanglement of a citizen by law enforcement officers of the government. Because the framers of the constitution believe that it is necessary to prevent such a situation: a law enforcement officer has to convict a person without sufficient evidence. When the jury announces "not guilty", the law enforcement officers are not reconciled and will get something tomorrow and prosecute again. After some excuses the day after tomorrow, the lawsuit was re-sue, anyway, don't think of peace. The prohibition of "two dilemmas" completely eliminates this possibility. For a crime, criminal prosecution is limited to one time only. To succeed, the prosecutor must succeed in a prosecution. If you are acquitted and released, you can only prosecute him again when he commits another crime and is caught by you. Otherwise, you can only watch him escape from your palm forever.
However, when people watched a white car carrying Simpsons driving toward home on the highway in a complicated mood on TV again, the price of the constitution guaranteeing the freedom and rights of citizens is very clear. of. If Simpson was guilty, he had escaped forever. "It is better to let a thousand people go than to kill one by mistake." Here, it is true that the price of wrongly killing an innocent citizen is that a thousand criminals may be released. This kind of price is multifaceted, and no matter from which way it is explored, it is heavy.
If Simpson was the murderer, the justice of the two victims could no longer be repaid, justice could no longer be done, and the desolate and angry voice of old Goldman would always make conscientious Americans uneasy. While "letting go of a thousand", people must face the cry of the victims. People will always wonder if they are losing a country like the old Goldman accused them of when they lose a court case.
If Simpson were the murderer, he probably wouldn't kill again after he let him go home. However, who can guarantee that those "one thousand", or even more than one thousand suspects who were let go because of insufficient evidence, will do what they will do when they return home? The more "release", of course, the greater the danger and the more uneasy the society. This is almost the simplest logic. Everyone is paying for it.
In fact, for the freedom and rights of citizens, Americans, in addition to paying a huge price for moral and security, are all paying the price of money. You have already seen that in the case of Simpson, the trial costs alone amounted to more than 8 million U.S. dollars. If the cost of police investigation and evidence collection is added, it will not be less than 10 million U.S. dollars. Don't think that this is because Simpson is a celebrity, and the trial took a particularly long time. The wife of a Chinese in California, accused of murdering her husband’s lover from the mainland and her children, has been tried for a long time, and was called the "Little Simpson Case" by the Chinese. It has been announced that the jurors could not reach a consensus. Failure, the case is suspended. Since the prosecutors refused to give up, a retrial will soon begin, at least twice the time. Of course this time is money. No matter what the final verdict will be, the jurors should be said to be cautious. At least they will not just make a hasty judgment just because the people involved in the case are all foreigners and minorities. Of course they not only know that the retrial will cost money, but they also know where the money comes from. Where did the money come from? I have told you before that the U.S. government does not own any business, and every penny of it is the tax paid to the government by the common people, including these jurors.
From today’s newspaper, we see that a Chinese student in Ihoda was charged with two first-degree murders. He killed a couple of foreign students who were both from China. He has not pleaded guilty. The prosecutor demanded that he be sentenced to death during the prosecution. At the last moment before the trial, he finally pleaded guilty. I have mentioned that in this case, he can get a bargain from the court in exchange for a slightly lighter sentence. As a result, he may be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. When reporters interviewed the family of the deceased, they talked about not understanding the American judicial system. For the Chinese, it is the most natural thing for the Chinese to kill to pay for their lives, and to pay for their lives. For Americans, there is an upper and lower limit of sentencing for a crime. Within this limit, all are reasonable. The confession of the offender can save a lot of manpower and financial resources, and the reduction of sentence within the limit is acceptable. I think the families of the victims must have never thought that if the case is prolonged, it may cost the American people millions and millions of dollars earned by hard work. In fact, Americans still have to keep him in prison with their own taxes, even though neither the murderer nor the victim is an American. They chose this principle for this piece of land, and they must pay the price for everything that happened on this piece of land. Sometimes, the price refers to money, sometimes, the price, even life.
After clarifying the cost, it takes courage to still choose respect for the rights and freedom of citizens as the highest goal. Moreover, sometimes, it can even be said that it can only be obtained if it is able to pay the price.
This letter is long enough. Miss you very much, letter.
Good
luck!
View more about American Crime Story reviews
