Of Evidence and the Proofs of a Crime, and of the Form of Judgment.


  The following general theorem is of great use determining the certainty of a fact. When the proofs of a crime are dependent on each other, that is, when the evidence of each witness, taken separately, proves nothing, or when all the proofs are dependent upon one, the number of proofs neither increase nor diminish the probability of the fact; foe the force of the whole is no greater than the force of that on which they depend, and if this fails, they all fall to the ground. When the proofs are independent on each other, the probability of the fact increases in proportion to the number of proofs; for the falsehood of the one does not diminish the veracity of another.

  It may seem extraordinary that I speak of probability with regard to crimes, which to deserve a punishment, must be certain. But this paradox will vanish when it is considered, that, strictly speaking, moral certainty is only probability, but which is called a certainty, because every man in his senses assents to it from an habit produced by the necessity of acting, and which is anterior to all speculation. That certainty which is necessary to decide that the accused is guilty is the very same which determines every man in the most important transactions of his life.

  The proofs of a crime may be divided into two classes, perfect and imperfect. I call those perfect which exclude the possibility of innocence; imperfect, those which do not exclude this possibility. Of the first, one only is sufficient for condemnation; of the second, as many are required as form a perfect proof; that is to say, that though each of these, separately taken, does not exclude the possibility of innocence, it is nevertheless excluded by their union. It should be also observed, that the imperfect proofs, of which the accused, if innocent, might clear himself, and does not become perfect.

  But it is much easier to feel this moral certainty of proofs than to define it exactly. For this reason, I think it an excellent law which establishes assistants to the principal judge, and those chosen by lot; for that ignorance which judges by its feelings is less subject to error than the knowledge or the laws which judges by opinion. Where the laws are clear and precise, the office of the judge is merely to ascertain the fact. If, in examining the proofs of a crime, acuteness and dexterity be required, if clearness and precision be necessary in summoning up the result, to judge of the result itself nothing is wanting but plain and ordinary good sense, a less fallacious guide than the knowledge, of a judge, accustomed to find guilty, and to reduce all things to an artificial system borrowed from his studies. Happy the nation where the knowledge of the law is not a science!

  It is an admirable law which ordains that every man shall be tried by his peers; for, when life, liberty and fortune, are in question, the sentiments which a difference of rank and fortune inspires should be silent; that superiority with which the fortunate look upon the unfortunate, and that envy with which the inferior regard their superiors, should have no influence. But when the crime is an offence against a fellow-subject, one half of the judges should be peers to the accused, and the other peers to the person offended: so that all private interest, which, in spite of ourselves, modifies the appearance of objects, even in the eyes of the most equitable, is counteracted, and nothing remains to turn aside the direction of truth and the laws. It is also just that the accused should have the liberty of excluding a certain number of his judges; where this liberty is, enjoyed for a long time, without any instance to the contrary, the criminal seems to condemn himself.

  All trials should be public, that opinion, which is the best, or perhaps the only cement of society, may curb the authority of the powerful, and the passions of the judge, and that the people may say, "We are protected by the laws; we are not slaves"; a sentiment which inspires courage, and which is the best tribute to a sovereign who knows his real interest. I shall not enter into particulars. There may be some persons who expect that I should say all that can be said upon this subject; to such what I have already written must be unintelligible.



导言:群体的时代 - 来自《乌合之众》

提要:目前这个时代的演变/文明的大变革是民族思想变化的结果/现代人对群体力量的信念/它改变了欧洲各国的传统政策/民众的崛起是如何发生的,他们发挥威力的方式/群体力量的必然后果/除了破坏以外,群体起不到别的作用/衰老的文明解体是群体作用的结果/对群体心理学的普遍无知/立法者和政治家研究群体的重要性   发生在文明变革之前的大动荡,如罗马帝国的衰亡和阿拉伯帝国的建立,乍看上去,似乎是由政治变化、外敌入侵或王朝的倾覆决定的。但是对这些事件做些更为细致的研究,就会发现在它们的表面原因背后,可以普遍看到人民的思……去看看 

第二次对话 现代政治学的诞生 - 来自《伯林谈话录》

马基雅维里:政治的自律性  贾:谁选定《反潮流》这个书名?是您还是出版商?  伯:是我。因为在该书里我写到的思想家多数都反对他们时代的流行观点,所以我选择了这个书名。  他们很多人是处在一个思想进步时期的反动分子。当然也有些思想家不属于这个范围。比如,威尔第就是个跟时代非常合拍的人,马基雅维里也可以算得上一个。马基雅维里是典型的意大利文艺复兴时期的思想家,而他又脱离了西方核心的传统观念之一。我认为或许是他最先认识到两种相互对立的价值系统可以并存:一种是基督教的价值系统,另一种合适的称呼是异教徒的……去看看 

前言 - 来自《第三波》

本书探讨的是二十世纪后期一项重要的,也许是最重要的全球性政治发展:即大约有30个国家由非民主政治体制过渡到民主政治体制。这本书试图解释发生在1974-1990年间这一波民主化的原因、方式及其直接后果。  本书横跨理论和历史两个领域,但是它既不是一部理论著作,也不是一部史书。它位于两者之间;它基本上是一部解释性的专著。一项好的理论不仅精确、严谨、优美,且能凸现出若干概念变项间的关系。然而没有一项理论能够全面地解释一个单一的事件,或一组事件。相比之下,一项解释则难免庞杂、肤浅、拖泥带水,而且思想上不令人满意。……去看看 

Amendments 11 - 27 - 来自《美国宪法(英文版)》

XI - Judicial Powers ConstruedPassed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.XII - Manner of Choosing a President and Vice-PresidentThis Amendment altered Article 2 Section 1 Part 2Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified Ju……去看看 

第十一章 大清洗 精英凋零 - 来自《阳谋》

一九五七年落网的右派份子,几乎全是中国知识界的精华和共产党中的知识份子干部,一一列举不可能。除了前已引述其言论的那些人之外,不妨再多举若干事例。   二次大战后,远东国际军事法庭在东京审判日本战犯。由于部份盟国法官反对使用死刑,代表中国出席法庭的法官梅汝(王敖)与助手商议,若日本首相东条英机、「九一八事件」策划者土肥原贤二、南京大屠杀首恶松井石根等七名战犯的绞刑案不能通过,他将跳海以明志。而后他日夜在各国法官中游说,终于使该案以六票对五票之微弱多数得以通过,为中国人民报了仇、雪了耻。一个月后,国民党……去看看