U18  Law and the Society(Ⅱ)

法律与社会（二）

Trial by Jury, a Fundamental Right and a Flawed System

       Reading Comprehension

       (包括“答案与题解”)      

       Notes

       课文参考译文

       练习

         ●Cloze

●Reading Passages(包括“疑难长句翻译与注解”)

         ●Translation

●Writing(包括“审题指导”)

Trial by Jury, a Fundamental Right and a Flawed System

The right to a trial by jury is a fundamental part of the United States legal system. It is a right firmly rooted in our democratic tradition. The jury system provides a buffer between the complex and often inflexible legal system and the average citizen on trial. The right to be judged by a jury is a right that most Americans feel very strongly about. However, due to recent jury decisions, some critics are questioning the value of this institution.

Our jury system is by no means flawless. It is subject to constant scrutiny and debate concerning its merit and its downfalls. As is true in all institutions, juries are capable of making mistakes. Psychological studies have been done on many aspects of jury behavior. Political scientists are also intrigued by juries and the manner in which they arrive at important decisions. Although most Americans believe in the jury system, there has been considerable controversy surrounding it lately. The public has become even more concerned about this institution recently. The outcomes of the Rodney King, the O.J. Simpson, and the Menendez brothers trials in Los Angeles and the dissatisfaction that followed the jury’s decisions are three examples of instances when the effectiveness of the jury system has come under fierce attack. From the public reaction to these decisions and others like them, it is very clear that the way in which juries reach their decisions is often as important to the American people as it is to the specific person on trial. Many people feel that the average jurist is not equipped to make the kinds of decisions they are faced with. These critics’ suggestions range from restructuring the system to totally eliminating it.

Most average Americans, I believe, feel that the right to a jury trial is a fundamental one, and its guarantees should be honored. These people would argue that laws are inflexible. They cannot deal with the individual circumstances in each case, but juries can take these into account. Still others believe that juries are favorable because they reflect the morals and values of the community they come from. Indeed, many proponents of the jury support the system because of a particular kind of jury bias, the tendency for jurors to place justice above the law.

Opponents of the system argue that juries are uneducated in legal procedures and should not be given the type of responsibility they have traditionally had. These people also argue that juries are biased. In fact, the psychological literature provides many examples of this bias. Jurors are less likely to punish a sad or distressed defendant, as opposed to a joyful one, apparently because the defendant is already being punished emotionally. Some opponents say that although juries are instructed not to pay attention to the media, they are more easily influenced by the news than judges. Critics of the jury system also point out that juries are expensive and are often unable to reach an agreement. They argue that the decisionmaking should be left up to the people who know the law, judges and lawyers.

In between these two extremes are those people who agree with the jury system as a whole, but feel that some changes need to be implemented to improve its effectiveness. These people suggest that juries receive instruction prior to hearing testimony. They argue that this would improve the system by providing some working legal knowledge for the jury as well as giving them an idea of what they are to listen for. Research has shown that exposing jurors to the laws involved in their decision-making resulted in significantly fewer verdicts of guilty. This finding suggests that lawyers and judges should have the responsibility of insuring that the jury is adequately informed of the legal issues at hand and the laws available to handle those issues.

On the whole, though, I feel that the American guarantee of trial by jury is a valuable one. I do feel, however, that in order to improve its utility, judges and lawyers need to accept the responsibility for educating the jury on relevant legal issues.

Reading Comprehension

1. Some critics are questioning the value of the jury system probably because             .

 ［A］ the jury system is unnecessarily complex and rigid

 ［B］ recent jury decisions are made against the democratic tradition

 ［C］ there is constant debate about its merit and its downfalls

 ［D］ some juries have made mistakes recently

2. Opponents of the jury system accuse jurors of              .

 ［A］ placing justice above the law

 ［B］ knowing nothing about the psychology of the accused

 ［C］ not having enough knowledge of the law

 ［D］ failing to consider individual circumstances of each crime

3. To which of the arguments does the author agree?

 ［A］ The jury system is flawed beyond remedy.

 ［B］ Some improvements should be made on the jury systems.

 ［C］ The jury system should be kept as it is.

 ［D］ The jury should be composed of judges and lawyers.

4. It can be inferred from the fifth paragraph that             .

 ［A］ the author is against the jury system

 ［B］ the jury is seldom adequately informed about the case it is hearing

 ［C］ better educated people should be selected for the jury

 ［D］ enough legal knowledge helps jurors make fairer decisions

5. The author’s attitude towards the jury system is             .

 ［A］ neutral         ［B］ biased         ［C］ negative         ［D］ positive

答案与题解

1.［D］  

第一段最后一句指出，由于最近陪审团的几次裁决错误，某些批评者开始对这一体制的价值提出质疑。第二段提到了罗德尼·金等例子来说明陪审团错判，以及由此所引起的人们对这个制度的怀疑和批评。

2.［C］  

参阅第二段倒数第二句、第四段第一句和第七句。

3.［B］  

参阅最后一段，尤其是该段第二句。

4.［D］  

第五段第五句提到，研究表明，如果让陪审员了解裁决过程中涉及的法律问题，判有罪的案件就会减少。这说明，律师和法官有责任让陪审团充分了解案件涉及的法律问题。由此推断，了解足够的法律知识对陪审员做出合理的判决非常重要。

5.［D］   意为：肯定的。

重点参阅最后一段，尤其是本段第一句。

Notes

1. 第一段第三句中buffer作“缓冲区”讲。

2. 第二段第三句是一个简单主从复合句。 句架是As is true..., juries are capable of...。

3. 第二段第八句是一个简单主从复合句。句架是The outcomes of..., the...,and the Menendez...trials...and the dissatisfaction...are three examples...when...。句中that followed the jury’s decisions是定语从句，修饰dissatisfaction；when引导的时间状语从句是修饰全句的。句中the Rodney King, the O.J. Simpson以及the Menendez brothers都是近年发生在美国的重大案件的当事人。

4. 第三段第四句是一个简单主从复合句。句架是...others believe that juries...because...community they come from。句中that引导名词从句，作believe的宾语;because在句中引导原因状语从句；they come from是省略了关系代词which的定语从句，修饰community。

课文参考译文

陪审团进行的审判——一项基本权利和有缺陷的制度

陪审团的审判权是美国法律制度的基本部分。这是牢牢扎根于我们的民主传统的权利。陪审团制度在复杂且往往不灵活的法律制度和受审的普通公民之间起缓冲作用。接受一个陪审团审判的权利是大多数美国人深有所感的一种权利。但是，由于最近陪审团做出的裁决，一些批评家对这个制度的价值提出了质疑。

我们的陪审团制度绝不是没有缺陷的。这个制度经常受到监督，并在涉及它的长处和衰落方面引起辩论。如同所有制度一样，陪审团也能犯错误。在陪审团行为的许多方面已进行了心理研究。陪审团和陪审团做出重大裁决的方式已激起政治科学家的好奇心。虽然大多数美国人相信这个陪审团制度，但是最近围绕这个陪审团制度已引起相当多的争议。公众最近对这个制度甚至更为关注。洛杉矶(法院)对罗德尼·金、欧·杰·辛普森和门内德兹兄弟三个案件的审理结果和陪审团做出裁决后引起的不满是陪审团制度的有效性遭到猛烈抨击的三个例证。从公众对这些裁决和其他类似裁决的反应可以非常明显地看出，陪审团做出裁决的方式对美国人民和对受审的具体人往往是同样重要的。许多人感到，普通的陪审团没有资格做出他们所面临的那类裁决。这些批评家提出了各种建议，有的建议调整这个制度，有的建议完全取消这个制度。

我相信，大多数美国平民都感到陪审团的审判权利是根本性的，陪审团的保证应当受到尊重。这些人会提出论据说法律是不容改变的。他们不能处理每个案件中的个别情况，但是陪审团可以考虑这些情况。另外也有一些人认为陪审团是有利的，因为陪审团反映出他们所在社区的道德规范和价值观。确实，许多主张实行陪审团制度的人支持陪审团制度是出于某种特有的陪审团偏见，即陪审员使正义高于法律的倾向。

反对这种制度的人提出的论据是，陪审团在司法程序方面没有受过教育，不应让他们承担他们历来承担的那种责任。这些人还提出这样的论据，即陪审团有偏见。实际上，心理学文献提供了许多这种偏见的例证。同快乐的被告相比，陪审员惩罚悲伤或痛苦的被告的可能性要小，这显然是因为被告已在感情上受到惩罚。一些反对者说，虽然陪审团已奉命不要注意媒体，但是他们更容易受新闻的影响，而不受法官的影响。对陪审团制度提出批评的人也指出，陪审团花费昂贵，而且经常无法达成一致意见。他们提出的论点是，做裁决的事应当留给懂法的人、法官和律师。

介于这两种极端意见之间的那些人同意整个陪审团制度，但是他们感到需要做一些变动以提高其效率。这些人建议陪审团在听证词之前先接受指导。他们的论据是，这样做会向陪审团提供一些适用于特定案件的法律知识，并向他们提示应该听什么证词，因而能改进这种制度。研究表明，陪审员如果了解与他们的裁决有关的法律，其结果是“有罪”的裁决将大大减少。这种研究结果表明，律师和法官有责任保证陪审团充分了解手头的法律问题和处理这些问题的法律。