這篇文章對陪審團贊得太過分了,我在美國法院看到的是一堆總在打瞌睡的陪審員。
真實世界許多司法案件都很無聊,陪審員睡著並不少見。睡著、神遊的陪審員還有多少「良心判斷力」,我是懷疑,也有美國學者懷疑。
更不用提陪審團的諸多缺點,例如陪審員無力理解過分困難的案件(常見於金融詐騙案),當這類案件出現而陪審團中有金融方面專業的陪審員或意見特別強的陪審員出現時,整個陪審團的意見都會被帶著跑。陪審員情緒化與政治化傾向,也是學者研究確實存在的問題。
就拿最近Floyd被警察壓死案為例,美國警察暴力執法造成死傷被控刑事究責時,我印象看過學者研究指出近8、9成在大陪審團(grand jury)階段就被駁掉以「不起訴處分」結案。而影響大陪審團的關鍵是「前案往往都這樣處理」。
我所知多數美國公民都不想擔任陪審員,都會努力讓自己在遴選階段就「故意被排除」。反之,這是不是代表那些「想在某案當陪審員」的人本身就存在「某種不客觀/預先偏見」?這一塊也有學者提出質疑。
而陪審團真正最大的問題在於:成本。
公民被抽中就有擔任陪審員義務,必須請假為之。一旦案件審理時間長達數個月,或案件因爭議性、機密性時,陪審員還得隔離在特定飯店禁止接觸外界媒體訊息(美其名是避免陪審員受媒體影響),這些費用都是稅金支出。陪審員喪失的工作產出則由雇主負擔。
一旦出現hung jury或過程折損陪審員人數過多亦或陪審團判決過於偏頗被法官廢棄,整個審判程序都要打掉重來,重新拉人遴選、重新審判。
歷史上也出現許多次因審判過程陪審員過度偏頗而廢棄審判,轉移送他州另行審判的案例。
試問台灣這麼小,發生重大案件而整體社會存在高度偏見時,要怎麼另找「客觀陪審員」審理?
以上簡單幾點都還只是隨筆想到的。
在美國念法學院的經驗是,真心認為陪審團是好制度的教授,我自己沒碰過。他們只會說:「美國是民主國家,所以審判也必須民主。」這種高大上的空話。
但其實大家都知道陪審團制度勞民傷財且不見得比civil law system更能在法庭上得到真實或伸張正義。頂多只能說:「審判結果也是民主投票出來的,大家摸摸鼻子接受就不鬧了。」
從實證看,1962~2010年,美國願意採取陪審團審判的民事案件佔總民事審判案件比例從6%多降至不到1%。可見美國人自己很清楚陪審團不靠譜又花錢。
了解美國審判制度就知道,法庭上還有許多程序限制陪審員亂判,真的判決太誇張也會被法官廢棄。
civil jury 在 Xiaxue Facebook 的最佳貼文
Reposting a snippet from my latest blog post, you can read the full article here: http://xiaxue.blogspot.com/2020/07/raeesah-khan-ge-2020-and-being-labeled.html?m=1
I’m posting more about Raeesah Khan today.
First, a disclaimer. I do not dislike the Worker’s Party.
Of all the opposition parties, I think they are the best. I live in Aljunied grc, and they have done a great job so far. I agree with many of the policy suggestions in their manifesto.
For example, redundancy insurance, abolishing the retirement age, or lowering the age of eligibility for BTO flats, which will help singles and our LGBTQ community to get housing just like married couples are.
Previously I mentioned on my ig stories that Raeesah Khan is not suitable to be an MP.
Today I am going to ask some very important questions which I hope both WP and Raeesah will answer.
I refer to this tweet by Raeesah in the photos.
It appears that she is saying her political views can be summed up by
- Angela Davis’ political views
- Intersectional feminism
Many of you may not know about Angela Davis, but she is a far-left activist, who spent her life sympathising with some of the most oppressive communism regimes around.
She literally calls herself a communist, and was a member of the Communism Party in USA. I think there is no need to explain how horrible communism is.
And of course in order to make any non-communist country a communist state, it would involve total revolution, many lives, and replacing it with a totalitarian regime in charge of redistributing wealth back to its citizens.
She is also a prison abolitionist, campaigning for prisons to completely be eradicated. Where to put the murderers, I can’t seem to find a good answer, because it seems she also is against the death penalty.
Angela Davis was a member of the Black Panthers, a brutal communist, anti-semite organization. In 1970, Angela Davis bought the weapons that were used for a shootout during a trial of 3 black inmates accused of killing a white prison guard. All the black men and judge who was held hostage perished in the gunfight, and Davis fled the state. She was eventually caught.
Even though she conspired to commit murder, the jury found her not guilty.
In short, this woman is the antithesis to the Singapore that Mr Lee Kuan Yew wanted.
This tweet of Raeesah Khan’s talking about Angela Davis was posted only a few weeks ago, but surprisingly enough, nobody is talking about it.
Anyone who knows who Angela Davis is should be horror-filled that a candidate running for parliament is a fan of hers, and claims that the reading of her books represents her political views.
Previously I mentioned Raeesah appears to be one of those radical leftists who seem hell bent on bringing the toxic, cancerous identity politics that America is so notorious for into Singapore.
There are racial issues that minorities face in Singapore, of course there is. It is tough to be a minority in any country.
But instead of discussing calmly and logically what new politics can be introduced to solve these problems or what laws need to change, proponents of Identity politics instead try to make a single race the enemy.
When there are enemies, people unite. Political parties using this method will see themselves get votes if they manage to market themselves as the empathetic ones, even if the politics they impose do more evil than good in the long run.
Society is then split into a them vs us, while tribalistic infighting ensue. If you disagree with this method of classifying victims by their skin colour (when in fact so many things determine a person’s privilege, such as looks, height, family wealth, health, both parents around etc etc), you are automatically seen as racist and the bad guy.
Because nobody wants to seem morally corrupt or unsympathetic, they prop up this system.
Instill this sentiment into citizens long enough and resentment builds. The ones constantly told they are being oppressed will start seeing oppression everywhere. They won’t even try to succeed in life, because they are told they are so oppressed they can never make it. They believe their oppressors owe them.
Meanwhile, the majority race starts feeling angry at constantly being called oppressors. Or maybe they are poor and unhappy themselves, but see that resources for help are only made available for minorities but not them. If they were indeed racist before, this makes them even more racist.
What eventually happens is civil war. We cannot have this poison in Singapore.
Raeesah’s has apologised for her posts, but nobody needed to hear whether she is sorry she was being insensitive.
What people need to know is:
Does she still believe our courts are corrupt as she so insinuated? Does she still believe law enforcement unfairly target minorities? If not, what made her change her mind? Her statement does not address any of this.
Worker’s Party claim they did not see those posts of Raeesah’s. Fair enough. But I do not believe they have done such terrible vetting that they have not seen her tweet about Angela Davis which was so recent.
I wish to ask Raeesah Khan, DO YOU DISAVOW ANGELA DAVIS’ POLITICAL VIEWS?
- Do you believe that Singapore, through a brutal revolution and death, can become a communist utopia?
- Do you think that everyone in Singapore should not own private property and should have equal wealth, the very values communism epouses? If so, do you seek to redistribute your multi-millionaire dad's wealth to the poverty-stricken citizens of Singapore?
- Do you agree that it is only with violence and death do we achieve true freedom?
- Do you seek to abolish prisons in Singapore?
- Do you believe in the ideologies of Karl Marx, or Valdamir Lenin?
As for Worker’s Party, why did you field a candidate who holds extreme left-wing views?
Do you agree with her ideologies and think it aligns with yours? DO YOU ENDORSE THESE FAR LEFT VIEWS??
Please answer these questions. I write all these not because I am a PAP lackey, even though obviously people will say I am. Despite what you think, I believe it is healthy to have opposition seats in parliament.
However, I absolutely do not want to see candidates such as Raeesah Khan in our parliament - she brings with her dangerous political views that can topple the peaceful society we built over the years and is completely against everything that Singapore stands for. As it is, the mindless youth of Singapore are already echoing her dangerous ideologies.
I would rather any opposition joker win than her.
civil jury 在 李綺雯 Marine Lee Yee Man Facebook 的最佳解答
最好的保密者,不止要守口如瓶
文:薯伯伯
萬一法庭要求 Signal 提交客戶資料,Signal 會如何應對?我們不說理論,只看真實經過法庭驗證的實例。
話說在 2016 年 6 月 30 日,美國維珍尼亞州東區聯邦地區法院發出傳票,要求 Signal 的代表機構,向聯邦大陪審團提供兩名 Signal 用戶的信息。
Signal 的代表機構美國公民自由聯盟基金(American Civil Liberties Union Foundation)向法院提交的正式回應,摘要如下:
- 美國法院的大陪審團要求向 Signal 交出兩個用戶的戶口資料。
- Signal 的代表回應:兩個電話號碼,一個沒有 Signal 帳號,另一個有。
- Signal 所採用的 Open Whisper Systems(OWS)對這名用戶只保留了兩項資料:
1. 開戶時間(time of account creation)。
2. 最後一次連接到 Signal 伺服器的時間(date of the last connection to Signal servers)
在回應法院的聲明裡,Signal 的代表機構還強調:
- Signal 並沒有存儲用戶的姓名
- Signal 並沒有存儲用戶的地址
- Signal 並沒有存儲用戶的電話號碼
- Signal 並沒有存儲用戶的電郵地址
- Signal 並沒有存儲用戶的交費方式
- Signal 並沒有存儲用戶的IP 註冊
- Signal 並沒有存儲用戶的IP 登入資料及地址
- Signal 並沒有存儲用戶的帳號歷史
- Signal 並沒有存儲用戶的收費記錄
- Signal 並沒有存儲用戶的上下流的供應商
- Signal 並沒有存儲用戶的 cookies 資料
- Signal 並沒有存儲用戶其他相關資料。
Signal 的代表機構還嚴正地回應法院的傳票,指出根據法例美國法院根本不能以大陪審團的傳票形式取得該幾項的資料。即使有合法的傳票,他們根本就沒有相關資料,所以在技術上是無辦法提供任何資料。
後來 Signal 在自己的博客上這樣解釋:「我們設計 Signal 服務時,儘量減少保留的用戶數據,我們能提供的唯一信息是用戶註冊 Signal 的日期和時間,以及用戶連接到 Signal 服務的最後日期。」
並再補充道:「我們沒有存儲用戶聯繫人的任何信息(如聯繫人本身、聯繫人的哈希值、任何其他衍生的聯繫人信息等),關於用戶組的任何信息(如用戶有多少個組,用戶在哪個組,用戶組的成員列表),或者用戶與誰通信的任何記錄。」
Signal 強調:「所有的消息內容都是端到端加密的,所以我們也沒有這些信息。」
當有人說,他們發現 Signal 的用戶協議裡,聲稱會向司法機構提供資料,其實這句話的含意,是他們會提供開戶日期時間,及最後連線的日期資料。
至於 Telegram 呢?最近看 HKFP 的報道,聲稱 Telegram 承諾暫時停止向香港執法或司法機構提供用戶資料,那他們如果要提供資料,可以提供甚麼呢?按以往的其他報道,他們有保留用戶的 IP 地址及電話號碼。至於還有沒有其他,就不是太肯定。
不過與其信一間公司自己的說法,我寧願更信一個經受法庭傳票驗證的事實。
最好的保密者是甚麼?
不是守口如瓶的人,而是甚麼也不知道的伙伴。
這個在資訊保安上,其實有一個名詞,叫zero knowledge,零知識,當對方甚麼也不知道時,即使想出賣你,也沒有辦法。類似的情況,還有 ProtonMail。ProtonMail 是加密的電郵系統,服務供應商如果收到傳票要把你的資料供出,也是無能為力。他們可以幫你把戶口的密碼重置,但裡面的內容會自動全盤崩毀,100% 刪除,不能回復。
這就是 zero knowledge 的意義與威力。
我們的信任,從來不應天真地建立在一間公司或機構之上,而是建基在制度之上。只有當制度的設計本身,根本不容許背叛,我們才能相信自己不會被背叛。
香港人,不會對上述這句話感到陌生吧?
👉 有關 Signal 回應美國維珍尼亞州東區聯邦地區法院傳票一事,請參考:
https://signal.org/bigbrother/eastern-virginia-grand-jury/
▶️ Patreon: www.patreon.com/pazu
civil jury 在 CIVIL JURY TRIAL - YouTube 的必吃
RULE 22: USE OF RECORDING DEVICES & CELL PHONESParties participating in remote proceedings and persons viewing live streams of such ... ... <看更多>