×

Loading...
Ad by
  • 推荐 OXIO 加拿大高速网络,最低月费仅$40. 使用推荐码 RCR37MB 可获得一个月的免费服务
Ad by
  • 推荐 OXIO 加拿大高速网络,最低月费仅$40. 使用推荐码 RCR37MB 可获得一个月的免费服务

这个道德难题,也很好玩,说到中国司法的一些特别之处。而且提到高罗佩(还是高佩罗?)。你知道谁是高罗佩吗?

本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛The Torture of the Mad Bomber.

A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber's innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?

In the judicial system of Imperial China, torture was technically illegal but tolerated because no one could be convicted without a confession. Torture could then be used with these provisions: (1) Questioning could only be done in open court. Since torture would then be administered in public, the public should agree, from the evidence, that the suspect is probably guilty. If it appeared that an innocent person was being tortured, a riot might result. The Judge, who was also the Magistrate of his administrative District, would be held responsible for the civil disturbance. (2) Punishment would be mitigated in proportion to any suffering inflicted by torture. And, most importantly, (3) if it turned out that an innocent person was convicted, the punishment he suffered could be imposed on the Judge. This was called 反坐 , "reversed judgment." I think that this is a fine legal principle -- where with us misbehavior by judges, prosecutors, or police is generally not liable to criminal sanction. A person not even under oath lying to a federal agent is guilty of a crime, but prosecutors can lie in court and the police can lie to suspects with impunity. The Chinese legal system is discussed and illustrated by the Dutch diplomat and scholar Robert van Gulik in his “Judge Dee”(狄仁杰) books.更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
Report

Replies, comments and Discussions:

  • 枫下拾英 / 心灵感悟 / 这个道德难题,也很好玩,说到中国司法的一些特别之处。而且提到高罗佩(还是高佩罗?)。你知道谁是高罗佩吗?
    本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛The Torture of the Mad Bomber.

    A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber's innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?

    In the judicial system of Imperial China, torture was technically illegal but tolerated because no one could be convicted without a confession. Torture could then be used with these provisions: (1) Questioning could only be done in open court. Since torture would then be administered in public, the public should agree, from the evidence, that the suspect is probably guilty. If it appeared that an innocent person was being tortured, a riot might result. The Judge, who was also the Magistrate of his administrative District, would be held responsible for the civil disturbance. (2) Punishment would be mitigated in proportion to any suffering inflicted by torture. And, most importantly, (3) if it turned out that an innocent person was convicted, the punishment he suffered could be imposed on the Judge. This was called 反坐 , "reversed judgment." I think that this is a fine legal principle -- where with us misbehavior by judges, prosecutors, or police is generally not liable to criminal sanction. A person not even under oath lying to a federal agent is guilty of a crime, but prosecutors can lie in court and the police can lie to suspects with impunity. The Chinese legal system is discussed and illustrated by the Dutch diplomat and scholar Robert van Gulik in his “Judge Dee”(狄仁杰) books.更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
    • 中国的司法是容许对于嫌疑人用刑的(我是说历史)。所以当堂用刑在历史戏剧里很多。我们有一个“反坐”的说话,就是当权者用刑判了错案,就要负责任。
      理论上说,这是很好的防止滥用刑。可是实际上,以中国的权威体制来实践这些司法原则的时候,绝对的都是滥用刑的,所以Torture应该不能被用。可是这个Madman的例子又似乎有些道理。很难解决啊,不然美国也不会被人骂了,他们正拷打那些恐怖分子呢。
      • 我就没听说过反坐, 就知道连坐, 看来被那些官老爷们呼悠了.
        • 对呀,官员的权力大,就偷偷把反制自己的条款给改了。所以还是要降低权力的作用。
      • Madman的我同意用刑。一般的不涉及到人生命的,我觉得不要用刑。不过“好人”是对付不了“坏人”的。
      • “反坐”是针对用刑人的吗?我记得反坐是针对原告的。法官(或县官、大理寺等)处于审判地位,对原告、被告进行审判,如果结论原告诬陷被告,则将刑加在原告身上。
        • “诬告反坐”。我看的是英文的,我再查查。