新译 福柯 《论法国19世纪法律关于危险个体的概念》

楼主:王道振法 时间:2009-11-09 12:41:50 点击:967 回复:6
脱水 打赏 看楼主 设置

字体:

边距:

背景:

还原:

  About the Concept of the “Dangerous Individual”
  in 19th Century Legal Psychiatry
  19世纪法律精神病学关于“危险个体”的概念。
  Michel Foucault*
  
  
  I would like to begin by relating a brief exchange which took place the other day in the Paris criminal courts.
   我想从前不久发生在巴黎刑事法庭中的一幕开始我的论述。
  A man who was accused of five rapes and six attempted rapes, between February and June 1975, was being tried.
  一个男子因被指控在1975年2月至6月间曾5次强奸以及6次强奸未遂而受到审判。
  The accused hardly spoke at all.
   被告几乎一言不发。
  Questions from the presiding judge:
   首席法官问道:
  Have you tried to reflect upon your case?
  你反省过你犯的事的吗?
  -Silence.
  (犯人)缄默
  
  Why, at twenty-two years of age, do such violent urges overtake you?
  你才22岁,怎么会让这样野蛮的冲动支配了你?
  You must make an effort to analyze yourself.
  你必须做出分析你自己的努力。
  You are the one who has the keys to your own actions.
  只有你自己才是解释你行为的关键。
  Explain yourself.
   解释你的行为。
  -Silence.
   缄默。
  Why would you do it again?
   为什么你会一而再的做那种事?
  -Silence.
   缄默。
  Then a juror took over and cried out:“For heavens sake, defend yourself!”
  当时一位陪审员跳了起来并且吼叫道:“看在上帝的面上,为你自己辩护吧!”
  
  Such a dialogue, or rather, such an interrogatory monologue, is not in the least exceptional.
  这样一段对话,更为确切地说是一段询问独白,并不罕见。
  It could doubtlessly be heard in many courts in many countries.
  无疑在各个地区的各个法院都能听到。
  But, seen in another light, it can only arouse the amazement of the historian.
  但是,从另一个方面来看,它只能激起历史学家的惊愕。
  
  Here we have a judicial system designed to establish misdemeanors, to determine who committed them, and to sanction these acts by imposing the penalties prescribed by the law.
  
  现在我们可以用司体系设计建立各种轻罪,确定触犯了它们的人,以及根据法律所规定的刑罚来制裁这些行为。
  
  In this case we have facts which have been established, an individual who admits to them and one who consequently accepts the punishment he will receive. All should be for the best in the best of all possible judicial worlds.
  
  在这个案件中,我们已经有了确凿的事实,供认不讳的个体,以及接受为此而受罚的人,所有这一切对于所有可能有司法的世界而言,是最好不过了。
  
  The legislators, the authors of the legal codes in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, could not have dreamed of a clearer situation.
  
  18世纪末与19世纪初的立法者们,法典权威们,做梦也想不到如此干脆的场面。
  
  And yet it happens that the machinery jams, the gears seize up.
  然而,所发生的这一切,让司法机器发生了故障,司法的齿轮卡住了。
  

打赏

0 点赞

主帖获得的天涯分:0
举报 | | 楼主 | 埋红包
楼主发言:1次 发图:0张 | 添加到话题 |
楼主王道振法 时间:2009-11-09 12:48:00
  Why? Because the accused remains silent. Remains silent about what? About the facts? About circumstances? About the way in which they occurred? About the immediate cause of the events?
  为何?难道是因为被告保持缄默,他为何而缄默?难道为了真相?为了案情?为了作案的方式?为了作案的直接动机?
  Not at all. The accused evades a question which is essential in the eyes of a modern tribunal, but which would have had a strange ring to it 150 years ago. Who are you?
  根本不是。被告回避的问题是在现代法庭看来的一个基本问题,但是这个问题放在150年前则会莫名其妙。这就是“你是谁?
  
  And the dialogue which I just quoted shows that it is not enough for the accused to say in reply to that question, I am the author of the crimes before you, period. Judge since you must, condemn if you will. Much more is expected of him.
  我刚才引用的这个对话表明,被告仅仅回答“你们审判的这一犯罪,就是我干的,就这么着儿了;既然你们必须判决,那就判吧,如果你们想惩罚我,就惩罚我吧”,是不够的,他被期望得更多。
  
  Beyond admission, there must be confession, self-examination, explanation of oneself, revelation of what one is.
   除了供认罪行,还必须忏悔,自我反省,自我解释,自我揭发。
  
  The penal machine can no longer function simply with a law, a violation and a responsible party.
  刑法机器不再单靠法律,违法事件与刑事责任能力人就能运作。
  
  It needs something else, a supplementary material.
   它需要某种额外的辅助材料。
  
  The magistrates and the jurors, the lawyers too, and the department of the public prosecutor, cannot really play their role unless they are provided with another type of discourse, the one given by the accused about himself, or the one which he makes possible for others, through his confessions, memories, intimate disclosures, etc.
  对于所有的法官、陪审员、律师、与检察官而言,想要真正扮演他们所要扮演的角色,就必须从被告人处得到另一类型的话语——被告人的自我控诉,或者是被告人藉由忏悔、回忆,隐秘公开,从而给予他人控诉的可能。
  
  If it happens that this discourse is missing, the presiding judge is relentless, the jury is upset. They urge, they push the accused, he does not play the game. He is not unlike those condemned persons who have to be carried to the guillotine or the electric chair because they drag their feet. They really ought to walk a little by themselves, if indeed they want to be executed. They really ought to speak a little about themselves, if they want to be judged.
  如果发生此类话语落空的情况,主审法官不会就此罢休,陪审团则心烦意乱。他们会敦促、逼迫被告,就因为他不玩这个游戏。他和那些拖拖拉拉不得不被架上绞刑架或电椅的死刑犯相比没什么不同。如果死刑犯真的想被处决的话,他们确实应该走上那么几步。如果犯人们想被审判的话,确实应该谈谈他们自己。
  
  
楼主王道振法 时间:2009-11-09 12:49:00
  The following argument used recently by a French lawyer in the case of the kidnapping and murder of a child clearly indicates that the judicial stage cannot do without this added element, that no judgment, no condemnation is possible without it being provided, in one way or another.
  以下观点援引自最近一起儿童绑架谋杀案中的法国律师,他清晰的指出:审判阶段不能没有这种额外的要素,否则的话,就没有审判,没有定罪。
  
  For a number of reasons, this case created a great stir, not only because of the seriousness of the crime, but also because the question of the retention or the abolition of the death penalty was at stake in the case.
  由于各种原因,这个案件造成了很大的轰动,不仅是因为犯罪本身的严重性,而且此案有关死刑的存废。
  
  In his plea, which was directed against the death penalty more than in favor of the accused, the lawyer stressed the point that very little was known about him, and that the nature of the man had only barely been glimpsed at in the interrogations and in the psychiatric examinations.
  从所作的辩护来看,律师更为热衷的是反对死刑的适用,而不是被告本人,律师一再强调的观点是,我们对被告的了解实在是太少了,而且被告的本性在审讯与精神鉴定过程中只是一笔带过而已。
  
  And he made this amazing remark (I quote approximately): Can one condemn to death a person one does not know?
   于是律师提出了这样惊人的意见(大意如此):难道人可以宣判一个他并不了解的人死刑吗?
  
  This is probably no more than one illustration of a well-known fact, which could be called the law of the third element, or the Garofalo principle, since Garofalo was the one who formulated it with complete clarity: Criminal law knew only two terms, the offense and the penalty.
  这个案件可能不过是可以被称之为第三要素的法,或称之为加罗法洛原则,这一众所周知的事实的一个例证而已。由于加罗法洛原则清楚的表明它是由“刑法只知道两个术语,违法与惩罚。”所确立的。
  
  The new criminology recognizes three, the crime, the criminal and the means of repression.
  而这种新的犯罪学认识到三个要素:犯罪,罪犯与阻止犯罪的手段。
  In large part, the evolution, if not of the penal systems, at least of the day to day penal practice in many countries, is determined by the gradual emergence in the course of the 19th century of this additional character.
  从大处着眼,许多国家即便没有发生刑罚体系的演进,至少发生了日常刑罚实践的演进,这种演进逐渐显现于在附加了此种特性的十九世纪期间。
  
  At first a pale phantom, used to adjust the penalty determined by the judge for the crime, this character becomes gradually more substantial, more solid and more real, until finally it is the crime which seems nothing but a shadow hovering about the criminal, a shadow which must be drawn aside in order to reveal the only thing which is now of importance, the criminal.
   起初,这个苍白的魅影,被用以调整法官的量刑,这种特性逐渐变得越来越实体,越来越稳固、越来越真实,直到最后,罪行被认为只是悬停在罪犯上空的一个暗影,为了突显出如今看来唯一重要的事情——罪犯,罪行必须靠边站。
  
  Legal justice today has at least as much to do with criminals as with crimes.
  今天,法律审判至少已经将罪犯与罪行同等对待。
  
  Or more precisely, while, for a long time, the criminal had been no more than the person to whom a crime could be attributed and who could therefore be punished, today, the crime tends to be no more than the event which signals the existence of a dangerous element-that is, more or less dangerous -in the social body.
  
  更为确切的说,长久以来,罪犯不过是某项罪行的所有者,并因此而受到惩罚的人。今天,罪行趋向于成为事件,作为危险因素存在的信号,也就是存在与社会肌体之内,或多或少的危险。
  
作者:凯华 时间:2009-11-10 12:05:00
  王道又有新译作了。
楼主王道振法 时间:2009-11-10 12:59:00
  这篇论文05年时,苏力先生翻译,李康先生校对,已经发表过了,最近偶然发现了英文版,于是重读了一下,顺便再次翻译了一下。
作者:欧阳慕云猫 时间:2009-11-13 07:06:00
  以人为本————人本主义~~~???
  
  第一次真正看到福柯的东西,3分路过~~~!!!
发表回复

请遵守天涯社区公约言论规则,不得违反国家法律法规