Trouble in the Deep History Reading Notes 1
First, the founders of the United States did not have the concept of "putting down the country and sitting on the country". On the contrary, they are worried that the unlimited expansion of government power will threaten the freedom of civilians (this is the meaning of "worry" in the title). As a result, not only did the federal government not be established, but a constitution was also formulated to protect people's freedoms and rights to the greatest extent. I really envy Americans because their founders are a group of idealists who put freedom first. 2. The Constitution of the United States holds that freedom of speech is an inherent human right, and all people can express their thoughts freely, whether what they say is true or not. People in China usually think that freedom of speech is advocated because no one can be sure that what he is saying is the truth. The more you argue, the clearer the truth becomes. However, Americans believe that as long as they think that the purpose of freedom of speech is only to pursue the truth, then one day, in theory and reality, one or several authoritative people or a group of so-called "majorities" can't stop themselves from claiming to be "truth" and stifle others' freedom of speech. This is what they never want to see.
A free society should allow different voices to exist. When introducing the right of American citizens to own weapons and organize militia, the author mentioned an activity held in Washington: someone called on relatives of people who were shot to take out a pair of shoes of the deceased and put them in a square. As a result, the square is filled with all kinds of shoes, which bear the sudden stop of life and the infinite grief of their loved ones. This is a heavy price paid by Americans for the freedom to hold guns. They repeatedly asked themselves, is it worth the price? But so far, they still choose to remain free and are prepared to bear the price. The reason is that the founders are afraid that unarmed civilians can't resist when the government is out of control.
I have read this passage several times, and every time I feel like Boss Wang, I can't help crying. I imagine endless shoes in that square, so I admire the courage of Americans to insist on freedom. It's a bit like "give me liberty or give me death". Fourth, the case of Simpson's wife killing, which occupied the most space in the book, once caused a sensation in the United States and even the whole world. Taking the trial process of this case as a clue, this paper introduces the judicial system of the United States in detail. American law protects the defendant as much as possible. It is better to let a thousand go than to misjudge one. As a result, many victims were denied justice, and many suspects were released for lack of evidence, including Simpson, who probably killed someone. This makes many kind people very painful. Whether to "misplace a thousand, don't want one" or "misplace a thousand, don't want one" is a difficult choice, just like the problem of guns. Americans choose the former because they don't want to see innocent people deprived of their freedom, especially innocent civilians persecuted by a powerful government. In addition, the jury system in the United States is also very distinctive. At first, like Linda, I thought it was incredible for Americans to let a mob take charge of life and death. But when you think about it, the law should not be a mystery. It is closely related to every ordinary person. Even if a professional judges a case, the result should be generally understood and accepted by the public, otherwise the rationality of the law is questionable. But I think it is more difficult for jurors to judge cases purely on the basis of evidence, without mixing their own subjective judgments. If you are a sensitive person, I'm afraid it's hard to be completely objective under the strong motive of cracking down on crime.
Worry in the Deep of History —— Reading Notes II
The first article leaves many questions, such as "the problem of apartheid in the United States has long been solved by law" and what is the "affirmative action bill"? Of course, I found the answer at the end of this book
Through typical cases and stories in the United States, the book introduces how the American Constitutional Bill of Rights is difficult to realize. As a multi-ethnic country, the United States is not a melting pot, but a "vegetable salad pot", because the cultures of all ethnic groups are integrated in it, because they are completely respected and do not deteriorate, and they do not have to succumb to any other culture or be included in any mainstream culture.
The premise of integration is to maintain the independence of the integrated individual and respect it. This reminds me of Malaysia, which is also a multi-ethnic country. Malays want Chinese to "integrate" into Malay culture and avoid conflicts before ethnic groups. Therefore, they have always hoped to cancel Chinese education and hope that Chinese people will receive Malay education like Malays.
Maybe Malaysia should learn from America. The more it wants to integrate, the more it should respect the cultural integrity and independence of all ethnic groups, so as to achieve the goal of living in harmony on the same land. Simple assimilation may be resisted. Maintaining alienation is undoubtedly a kind of reverse thinking.
The United States is free, but there are countless detailed laws, so another reverse thinking was born. Perhaps freedom is not unfettered, but a clearer regulation can determine freedom? Just like China's film censorship system, there is no complicated and detailed regulation on what the film censorship should abide by, but the judgment of whether the film meets the screening requirements is handed over to the administrative staff of the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television. China's films are not only not free, but also have narrower and narrower space to play, and the themes that directors dare to touch are also less and less because of introspection and personal inspection.
This article mentioned the story of an American teenager who was flogged in Singapore, which seems to be the story told by the Singapore team. I used to think that China should learn from American constitutionalism, but now I think it is better to start with these details. After all, isn't it urgent to expect constitutionalism?
From the beginning of the system, the American Constitution has a different starting point from ours, which determines that our laws are protecting the management power of the government, while the American Constitution is protecting people's rights from infringement.
In the final analysis, the problem of the government is a problem of people, and the government is made up of people. I believe our founders also want to build a free and democratic country, or at least a country where most China people are happy. But compared with Washington's consciousness and wisdom, it is far from it.
So do ordinary people. I don't agree with ignorance. I believe that the wisdom of the masses is infinite, but I think there is indeed a gap between the ordinary people in China and the American people. When we blame the government for how bad it is, we should also see if our people are irresponsible. In the final analysis, the problem of government is still a problem of people, and the government is made up of people.
Notes on Sorrow in History 3
(1) Legal Protection of Criminal Jury Rights
The constitution protects the right of defendants accused of felony to be tried by jury. According to the federal constitution of the United States, minor crimes punishable by imprisonment of less than six months have no right to be tried by jury (Duncan case precedent). In other words, for crimes that may be sentenced to less than six months, the US Constitution does not mandate jury procedures, but can be freely chosen by state courts.
(2) Abandoning jury trial
Most criminal cases in the United States are not decided by juries, but are resolved through plea bargaining. Confession (confession = confession) is the negotiation of confession. As a consideration, the prosecutor will reduce the charges of prosecution, prosecute with a lighter charge, and ask the court to impose a lighter penalty. When the defendant pleaded guilty, he also gave up the right to accept the fact trial (made by jury or judge), so the judge directly decided to make a judgment after sentencing.
However, the U.S. Constitution does not give the defendant the right to give up jury trial unconditionally. In the federal court system, the defendant can give up the jury trial only with the consent of the prosecution and the permission of the court. In most States, the defendant's waiver of jury behavior often requires the consent of the court and/or the prosecutor.
(3) Number of jurors
In the federal court, the number of jurors is 12 in principle, but it can be less than 12 if both parties agree. At the state court level, the number of juries is less than 12, and the defendant can also choose a jury less than 12. The precedent of the American Constitution stipulates that the number of jurors can be reduced to at least six.
Worry in the Deep History —— Reading Notes 4
The book Trouble in the Deep of History introduces the ideological principles and development process of American law and politics, as well as its operation method and historical value, and also briefly describes the price that has been paid and will be paid for this system.
Speaking of the United States, some people think it is heaven, as if the moon in the United States is rounder than that in China, and some people think it is a terrible hell and the base camp of evil capital. However, these judgments are biased. This book takes off the colored glasses, which makes me more clearly see the shortcomings of the American political and legal system and the advantages worth learning.
Simpson's case occupies a large space in this book. In this case, I really feel a lot of confusion and incomprehension, but for the first time, I have a clear understanding of jury system, procedural justice and presumption of innocence.
Presumption of innocence means that a suspect must be presumed innocent before being convicted. This is an extremely important article in the American judicial system. The presumption of innocence guarantees the moral equality of both the prosecution and the defense. The prosecution is not a representative of justice, and the defense lawyer is not a villain who excuses criminals. It also guarantees the freedom and right of suspects to wash away their innocent mistakes. This legal awareness of presumption of innocence has not been understood by China people. For example, on 20 16, 16/0/5, Anhui police arrested three suspects who robbed children, put the words "mosaic" on the photos and uploaded them to the Internet, which won the applause of netizens and called them the most beautiful mosaic. This violation of the suspect's right to privacy was actually praised, which fully reflected his innocence. Of course, this awareness has gradually penetrated into China's legal system. In the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Comprehensively Deepening the Reform of People's Courts issued by the Supreme People's Court on February 26th, 20th15th, it is clearly required that criminal suspects do not have to wear prison clothes, which is a great progress in judicial reform, and the presumption of innocence will be more deeply rooted in people's hearts.
Jury system is a major feature of common law system. Although I have heard of it before, I have never understood it well. After understanding this system, I feel suspicious. Judging whether a suspect is guilty or not requires professional knowledge and rational analysis ability. But jury members are just ordinary adult citizens. They exclude lawyers, doctors, teachers and other professions that may have a tendency to think, but not all adult citizens have the ability of rational analysis, let alone relevant professional knowledge. Moreover, after excluding elite industries, I have doubts about the level of jury members, which makes such a difference. And it's hard for a jury to guarantee justice. In Simpson's case, there were more blacks than whites on the jury. Under the background of racial conflict, it is obviously beneficial for Simpson to play the race card to clear his suspicion and ensure a fair trial through a group that may be unfair. Can this be done? Mob mentioned that in the crowd, everyone's stupidity will be superimposed and strengthened, while rationality will only offset and weaken each other, so a multi-person jury may be more likely to make wrong judgments. On the other hand, the civil law system is dominated by judges with professional knowledge, which is more conducive to making fair judgments.
Through Simpson's case, I also realized that procedural justice is not only the premise and foundation of making a fair trial, but also the guarantee of ordinary people's rights. Evidence that violates procedural justice must be deemed invalid, and inferences based on such evidence will also be deemed invalid. At first glance, I find it incredible that invalidating evidence in the name of procedural justice is obviously not conducive to a fair trial. For example, all kinds of evidence in Simpson's case are almost invalid because they do not conform to the procedure, which may let the criminals get away with it. But after careful consideration, I realized that procedural justice is the most important thing. If there is no procedural (www.simayi.net) justice, giving the police great power and encouraging the police to solve the case by hook or by crook, the privacy of ordinary people will be completely lost. Historically, Britain issued universal writs, which seriously violated the legitimate rights and interests of the colonial people in North America, which became an important reason for the outbreak of the War of Independence and also contributed to the Fourth Amendment to the American Constitution. The Stasi in East Germany monitored its own people in every way, but behind the seemingly firm control of people's hearts, it bred people's resentment against the East German government and contributed to the fact that East Germany finally became history. Seemingly redundant procedural justice is actually not only an important right guarantee for individuals, but also secretly affects the direction and future of this country.
Worry in the Deep History —— Reading Notes 5
This book also refreshed my understanding of justice. Actually, justice is a very subjective thing. From different angles, I have different understandings of justice. As said in the Japanese drama legalhigh, many times, our sense of justice is only because we stand on the moral high ground and sympathize with others. The judicial system pursues a fair trial, not justice, so the prosecution is not a representative of justice, and the defense lawyer is not an excuse for criminals. Paranoid pursuit of justice sometimes has negative effects. Hangzhou nanny arson, nanny was sentenced to death, really culpable of punishment. However, the comment that "not sentencing to death is not enough to be angry together" got the highest praise and made my spine cold. She deserved the death penalty, not a trial to appease public anger. Many people are always keen to stand on the moral high ground and think that they are representatives of justice, but they are often just trials. Now many people on the Internet are laughing at Mo Huanjing's defense lawyer, who wants to be famous and crazy. This reminds me of the lawyer who defended Soviet spies in bridge of spies. Why can't he defend a man who has committed a heinous crime? Public anger cannot deprive a criminal of his right to defend himself. The reference to groups in Mob is blind, and psychologist Fromm thinks that "by becoming a part of power, people feel powerful, eternal and charming power. In this process, people will yield and give up their personal strength and pride; But it will also gain a new sense of security and participate in the pride that is overwhelmed by strength. " Sympathizing with the people's anger and sense of justice condensed by others, rational analysis and professional knowledge are not much. In addition to interfering with a fair trial, it can only make every individual in the masses feel extremely strong and satisfied.
China's concept of rule of law is not deeply rooted in people's hearts. Perhaps the influence of the old ideas of feudal society on contemporary China people still exists, and the ghost of' Master of the Sky' still lingers. On Weibo, as long as you search for the two keywords "Central Committee of the Communist Youth League" and "Report", you can see that Giant Baby is crazy about asking for banning things he doesn't like. Just like in the old society, when people faced with injustice knelt at the entrance of yamen and shouted "God upholds justice", they simply could not see the trust and dependence on the rule of law. In these online reports, I also glimpsed the shadow of the poster. Sometimes I think many people keep saying that they dislike censorship, but it's actually just because they don't ban it according to their own preferences, just like many times we condemn injustice just because we don't benefit from it (digression).
There is a long way to go in Xiu Yuan, and I will go up and down. Although the rule of law system in the United States is relatively perfect, it also has many shortcomings. The development of China's rule of law system started late, and there are still many shortcomings to be improved, but great progress has been made. I believe that after the revision of the Constitution, the rule of law system in China will surely meet the people's expectations more and more.