法学毕业论文之外文翻译

毕业论文外文资料翻译 学院(系): 法学院 专 业：
法学二专 姓名：
学 号：
外文出处：1、《Frontiers of Law in China》2010,5 2、《Center for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies Monash University Melbourne》
附件：
1.外文资料翻译译文；
2.外文原文 指导教师评语：
签名：
年 月 日 附件1：外文资料翻译译文一 死刑听证制问题研究 YUguan yang 摘要：
死刑主要用于对最严重的罪犯的惩治。给这些案子举行公众听证制似乎是保证司法公正性的最佳方式。死刑案的公众听证制在维护司法公正性和保障人的权利有着重大的意义，并且早已获得国内外的关注。本文将解释美国相关死刑听证制机构的条件，从权利和义务角度定义公众听证制的性质，分析死刑公众听证制的特殊内涵，介绍外国的一些死刑听证制的案例，并且分析当前中国对于死刑公众听证制的实行，并通过一些建议实现对听证制的推进。

关键词：死刑案，公众听证制，国际标准，中国的实践 死刑案听证制必须严格遵守犯罪公正性的国际标准，尤其是与美国相关的公众听证制。公众听证制包括公开审判和公开宣判，两者都包括几个方面。作者想分享一些与联合国相关文件死刑案公开审判和宣判的理解。

1,公众听证制的意义和要求 1.1,公众听证制在权利和义务方面的基本原理 公众听证制包括公开审判和公开宣判。公开审判是指法庭上的一系列活动，比如调查证人，调查案件事实，双方证据交换等。公开审判的核心是对审判活动的处理，由当场公开起诉、辩护陈述、询问证人、核查证据和法庭最后陈词组成。在形式上，公开审判有两个要求：首先，包括案件名称、起诉罪名、被告人身份、法庭审判的时间地点和出庭人员在内的信息必须提前公布；
其次，必须为公众的旁听提供足够的便利，任何人都应当被允许参加旁听，而记者也应被允许对审判进行报道。公开审判的参加人员不能被限制于某一特定类型；
但是法律法规指定的例外，比如法庭审议，任何想要参加旁听的人都不能被拒绝；
所有的法庭活动，尤其是询问证人和检验证据都应该公开进行。

至于宣判，除非法律明文规定，任何刑事案件的宣判都应当公开进行。被告人有权接到宣判文件，且被告人不能放弃或拒绝国家司法部门将案件结果公之于众。如果被告人对宣判结果不服，他可以上诉，但是却无权阻止司法机关公布宣判。公众的判断不仅能维护被告人的权利，而且也反映了国家司法公正，实现社会公众了解案件情况的权利。因此，国家不能因被告人放弃权利而取消对案件结果的公布。

1.2，死刑公众听证制的特殊含义 由于牵涉到被告人的生命，死刑案件与普通的刑事案件不同。在一些西方国家，普通刑事案件的被告可以放弃审判的权利，然而在死刑案件中，即使被告人有自证其罪的意愿，公开审判仍是不可避免的。

在死刑案件中，被告、其亲朋好友和普通大众会更关注审判，因此关于案件信息的揭露应当更加详细，最好包括死者和被告人的信息，案件的具体情况，宣判的依据和原因。除了个案以外，国家或地区死刑案件的总数、减刑情况和执行情况都应当揭露给公众，以便于公众能了解政府死刑政策和处理案件的原由。

现今世界上一些国家没有公布死刑的相关数据。例如，在日本，公众并不知晓个案死刑执行的信息，但是合计数据还是公开的。联合国经济社会理事会已经要求秘书长视察成员国自1973年各国每隔5年的死刑执行情况，但是并没能得到各国多大的响应。一项关于是否保留死刑的调查显示，62个国家中，87%完全无视，只有4个国家反映认为应当取决于对死刑的应用和执行总数。

一些国家理性地认为应当保留死刑，因为死刑符合国家当前情形，包括人民意愿。当然，这只是一种考虑，取决于公众是否想要保留死刑。在此之前，我们必须想公众公布死刑的信息。如果死刑的数据没有想公众公开，那么怎么能够让死刑执行的必要建立在人民意愿只上呢？只有公开死刑数据，公众才能获得理解死刑的权利；
人们才能在知晓真相后完善他们的看法，从而政府才能知晓人民的意愿。当政府一方面援引公众意见，而另一方面却故意向公众隐瞒死刑作用的相关信息，这便自相矛盾了。如果民意对于一个国家来说是很重要的考虑因素，那么政府就应当为形成民意而提供了解信息的渠道。如果一个国家希望将民意作为 保留死刑的重要原因，但却拒绝向人们揭露死刑的信息，这是不合理的。

宣判信息的公开和死刑的执行对于面对死刑的人及其家人都有着及其特殊和重要的意义。一个已经被宣判死刑的人在执行死刑前仍然享有其正当权利和其他权益的保障。例如，依据法律，一个被判死刑的罪犯的罪行应当有更高一级的法庭进行复核，或应当拥有寻求赦免或减刑的权利。没有即使向罪犯及其家人提供案件信息可能会给他们行使权利带来阻碍，因此而至程序正当于危险之中。

死刑的执行也应当公开，以确保公众的知悉权。对宣判和死刑执行的公布使案件受害者及其家人好友知道司法的公正并且罪犯已经呗惩治；
使公众了解个案的执行和国家死刑政策的总体情况；
并且向那些想要犯罪的人现实法律的力量，促使他们停止犯罪。

2.中国类似于死刑公众听证制的探索 公众听证制是中国刑事司法体系的基本原则。中华人民共和国宪法第125条规定：“除法律规定的特别情况外，一律公开进行。”中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法第11条规定：“人民法院审判案件，除本法另有规定的以外，一律公开进行。” 2.1死刑公众听证制的准备 中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法第151条规定：人民法院决定开庭审判后，应当进行下列工作：

（一）确定合议庭的组成人员；


（二）将人民检察院的起诉书副本至迟在开庭十日以前送达被告人。对于被告人未委托辩护人的，告知被告人可以委托辩护人，或者在必要的时候指定承担法律援助义务的律师为其提供辩护；


（三）将开庭的时间、地点在开庭三日以前通知人民检察院；


（四）传唤当事人，通知辩护人、诉讼代理人、证人、鉴定人和翻译人员，传票和通知书至迟在开庭三日以前送达；


（五）公开审判的案件，在开庭三日以前先期公布案由、被告人姓名、开庭时间和地点。

2.2，死刑案听证制的参加 公众听证制最显著的表现是允许公众进行旁听。在中国参加庭审是有限制的。例如，法庭容量是有限制的，也许人们在旁听死刑案件的时候只能没有座位，这显然会印象公众听证制的效果。

2.3，公开法庭记录和其他文件 毕竟，只有少数人能够参加庭审，由于有些人还不能够准时到达法庭等原因，参加旁听的人甚至什么都听不到或者理解不了。那些有公众听证会的案子，如果法院通过特定渠道公开法庭记录，将会提高听证会的作用。并非每个社会成员都需要阅读个案完整的法庭记录。只有那些对案子有监督责任的人、机构、辩护律师，与案子相关的人员，对案子有兴趣的新闻机构和研究这些案子的学者才想要特定案子的完整庭审记录。所以，庭审记录的公开取决于判断，志向那些有需要的人员公开。如果庭审记录的公开需要费用，那么法庭可以向那些要获得记录的人索要。由于能够参加和报道公众听证，人们就知道庭审是否是公正的。

2.4，公开宣判的模式 起诉议案和死刑案宣判的透明度，尤其是宣判依据和所应用的法律，不仅反映了公众对被告人的看法，对法律的传播和教育也起到了很大的作用。

传统上而言，宣判会以在法院门口或公共场所贴公告，或将部分内容发表在新闻中，或者将所有案子做成册子发表年鉴。这三种方法都存在于中国。然而，这种对死刑的公开方式是有限制的。由于通过这种公告方式，能看到的人数是有限的，因此公开宣告的作用也是有限的。在新闻上发表死刑案并不是一种正式的公开方式，因为这通常是从新闻的角度选择性的发表一些案子，而且是节选部分宣判；
在中国，对于案子的编辑并非是系统化的，没有固定结构，并不能完整地反映死刑案。随着网络的普及，在网络上发表死刑案能够避免以上传统模式的弊端。

2.5，公开死刑案二审的听证 中国法庭二审与外国的二审有基本区别。国外死刑案件的二审通常不处理事实问题，而是法律问题，尤其是程序和证据的收集是否合法。而中国的二审更广泛地回顾案件事实和法律，并没有局限于上诉或抗诉所提出的问题。因此在庭审模式上二审与一审并没有多大区别，甚至可以认为是审判的延伸，所以也二审应当适用公众听证制度。

2.6，死刑复核的透明度 从2007年1月开始，死刑复核的权力被回收到中国人民最高法院，结束了26年国家对死刑复核权的部分放权。最高院集合死刑复核权在确保死刑案件处理、维护人权、展开谨慎处理死刑案的政策、形成死刑的统一标准有着及其重大的意义。在回收死刑复核权之后，最高院发布文件统一死刑复核程序。这些文件包括最高院对有关死刑案件问题的规定，确立了对被告人的审问程序、调查与核实证据、采取辩护律师的意见、完善死刑复核程序等，并且已经去的了显著成效。

根据中国现行刑事诉讼法，死刑复核程序在第三编，审判里。这意味着法律制定者认为死刑复核程序是审判程序的一部分。因此，在最高院收回死刑复核权后，应当根据法律进一步完善死刑复核程序公众听证制问题的研究。因此，在死刑复核程序中，必须遵守一系列关于公众听证制的原则和刑事审讯方式，法院应当允许检察官和辩护律师参加其中。只有这样，双方的权利，尤其是被告方的辩护权，才能得到保障，被告方才能在最后阶段行使辩护权。根据既定程序的标准，改变中国死刑复核程序的行政本质将完善死刑案的每一步骤。

3，结论 各国应当根据不同的国情来做不同的决定。在那些保留死刑的国家，死刑案必须根据已定的国际法和国内法中的公众听证制原则来处理。如果国内立法和有关听证的司法判例与国际人权法律、刑事公正不符，或者与死刑公众听证制不一致，相关国家应当采取措施来改善国内立法和判例。

为了公正和公开审判，死刑公众听证制的完善是必要的。公正公开的的审判不仅有益于整个刑事诉讼程序，中国法律体制建设，也有益于维护中国宪法的人权、国际人权要求及刑事司法标准。

外文资料翻译译文二 新西兰奥特来罗瓦的公正和法律 ————两个案例的学习 摘要：本文通过对两个案例的学习，分析在新西兰奥特来罗瓦法律的实践和这个殖民大陆上“非法”、“不文明”以及“混乱”的关系。由于在奥特来罗瓦，法律和殖民利益的直接挂钩，我认为，无论在哈克党案还是迈尔五世万佳市议会案，关于辩护的法令都着重于法律的权威性和对差异性的排挤之间的关系。据两案的法官说，毛利法律的规定和文化与“法律和秩序”这一原则想冲突。根据殖民联系，毛利法律和文化与文明的威胁之间所表现出来的关系，法律和秩序展现了法律对于一种有文化偏差的习惯的操控，并且反映了帕克哈（欧洲新西兰的士族）的利益。因此，挑战那浮出水面的威胁已使法律在任何案子里都展现出其原有的威胁，暴露那原本就控制着它的暴力，也因此为公众打开了批评的大门。也许比实质上对体系的攻击更厉害的是，这些法令暴露了法律对公正性的挑战，不仅使法律有可能成为一种特定文化阶层利益的反映，而且因此能被改变得可以为公正服务。

关键词：殖民的，哈卡党，公正，毛利法律，新西兰，帕克哈 1， 暴力问题 1978年，新西兰政府委托了一个报告，即众所周知的“罗珀报告”，这个报告在各种坏境下研究暴力行为。虽然许多人都称赞这个报告，但人们也普遍注意到，很多来自毛利人的评论并不好。许多批评家认为与毛利人在这些问题上商议的失败，影射出社会上和政治上存在更加普遍的不公正现象，这些都使给制造暴力创造了社会条件。例如，泰特海·哈日怀瑞, 争论说任何有关毛利人和暴力之间关系的报道应该考虑到这些暴力发生的社会和文化环境。换句话说，必须考虑到权利和财富在社会中的不平均分布，以及在这些关系下“暴力”的确立，维持和产生。它必须脱离法律法规和犯罪来看待这件事，要考虑发生这些暴力所在的特殊历史文化环境。这样，哈日怀瑞所关心的就仅仅是报道上所写的，而是那些趋向暴行的因素是什么：系统化，制度化的种族主义在法律和刑事司法系统有暗示。

2. 代表性暴行：哈卡党案 新西兰奥特亚罗瓦的有关犯罪的媒体报道调查中，斯布雷发现：即使是过度[毛利人和太平洋岛民]表示允许。在犯罪行为上：当暴力和性描述了案件的结局，报纸更乐意使用如毛利人或太平洋岛民的标签，而不是白种人或欧洲。

这样身份标志物的使用是以刑事罪行的报告为基础的，同时重新申明普遍假设及族裔群体和犯罪行为之间的关联。事实上，斯布雷接着指出：“错误和夸张的报道也可能被认为是某些在阻碍与毛利人/太平洋群岛有关系的活动（如帮派成员，强奸，逾期居留）。重点是进一步支持在1986年提交给报业评议会，其中指出，在报纸报道未发表的210份调查中，只有非白种人[或者非欧洲后裔新西兰人]的种族确定，犯罪和暴力的项目中，那些少数人的标志经常在使用被弄乱（斯布雷）。

3.媒体表现 媒体对事件的反应很快证实了斯布雷概述的种族主义倾向。奥克兰明星第一份报纸头版标题写到：“匪帮在大学里暴动，学生在哈卡派对上怒殴”。毛利人和太平洋岛民，其中大部分也是学生，被描述为一个“匪帮”。尽管事实是他们“是不穿任何能识别的＇补丁＇”， 这个文章本身也承认。

同样地，在新西兰先驱报的社论，题目是＇没地方给暴力＇，认为，＇哈卡＇不是故意要冒犯而这种罪行并没有在过去采取过。这位编辑坚持认为，大学是一个自由和宽容的地方，这次袭击很可能已经由“毛利人的激进派“计划过，因此不是一个自发的，而是故意的行为。有关这些＇激进派＇的可能身份的言论在附近开始流传。媒体压倒性的结论就是，被捕“哈卡党”的攻击者，如果新西兰人能保持安全，这些法律必须坚持。

澳大利亚和新西兰的环境差异，在这里是值得着重比较的。像新西兰的法律制度，在一定程度上，澳大利亚法律承认土著法律。特别是在马博v昆士兰（第2号）（1992）高等法院承认原住民土地权和在这个过程中推翻了这一概念，即澳大利亚是以往任何时候无主地，这是一个概念，对这一信仰提供了法律支持，尽管明显地在法律和文化系统上属于土著居民。“1788年澳大利亚无人居住由主权或由院校或法律承认的人” 4. 法律和人权 遥感的紧迫性，他们需要解决的情况下的＇哈卡党案＇，人权委员会收集的＇白种人意识形态＇的范例和毛利人的反对意见，并发表了一份初步报告，是新西兰种族和谐声明的问题。该报告是一个由公众提交人权调解人，曾要求受访者询问与哲学有关的“哈卡党”的问题，他正义地考虑到自己手中调用的结果。这项研究分为七个标题（“所有新西兰人”，“不同待遇”，“不容忍公差”，“新西兰作为一个多文化的社会”，“种族主义”，“双文化主义，土地，文化认同和语言”和“法律/权利”），并分为两类组织的报告：“观点一”，“以中心主题为基础，新西兰是一个单一文化的社会--我们都是新西兰人”，“观点A”，其中“地方上的观点强调，新西兰是一个多元文化群体的社会”。

＇哈卡党攻击者从“观点一“非常清晰地表出现敌对的态度。受访者形容为“有组织的行为凶杀，几乎是暴力阴谋”，一个是＇哈卡党攻击＇“一些愚蠢的误导青少年不正当的行为：为原始的野蛮人决定争辩的手段”。在＇差别待遇＇这一节中，他们争辩说，毛利人的特殊规定是＇种族＇和“为了使事情公然”，将使毛利人享有“文明的文化，同时为他们自己的文化享受特殊待遇。其中在＇禁忌＇和＇峡谷＇的例子中，异教徒的做法就给整个社会带来不便。”这一判决有许多不同反响，这些受访者认为，平等和民主只能在实现毛利人根本上认为自己是新西兰人时，才能实现 。因此，需要公正和平等的差异否定;作为分裂主义和种族主义的毛利人的习俗，从这一立场，法律或身份是看到的。因此，毛利人被他们自己指责为种族紧张关系的原因。

这一观点为法院的决定提供了一些的解释。的确，正如沃克指出，布莱克伍德的反应证明了“英国审判”的方式与白种人法律和秩序的概念很早就被认为是对毛利文化和政治完整的不屑断言。

5.案例二：迈尔V万佳区议会 法律，另一种揭示实例的方式，毛利人法律和风俗已经代表性地被迈尔v万佳区法院断言为一个威胁。虽然不直接涉及任何暴力的例子，这个案件涉及的行为审判长选择解释为对法律的权威攻击。此外，这种特殊的情况下以何种方式来显示重要地位的法院，无论是作为一个物理空间还是一个象征，都是对统治关系的空间和建筑的体现。这一事件发生于1995年10月31日，当肯梅尔，一个众所周知的毛利活动家，在法庭上协助一个被告袭击他人的朋友。迈尔向法官表示，他将要进行karakia，或在向法院提出诉讼前，让传统的毛利人进行祈祷。法官爱迪恩说：“作为一个法官，在我看来，在karakia期间出现在这些特殊的境况下是不合适的。迈尔提出的问题是，不是karakia自身的说法，而是尝试去“由法官在的情况下进行karakia。” 法官的裁决因此不仅仅是对迈尔的话语回应，而是对他反应的“警告”，威胁或挑战，法律不得不作出反应锯。由于时间和事件发生的地点在1995年10月的万佳区法院，很少人会不注意到迈尔在这一年的早些时候在这个城镇参与毛特欧花园的职业。由于迈尔频繁被媒体描绘为＇毛利激进＇，极力反对官方竞选毛利人主权问题，许多人可能确实怀疑他对法律的尊重。然而，迈尔没有公开提出质疑：在法庭上，他都在各方面顺从法官的指示，除非它违反了毛利人的法律。迈尔在法庭上的行动是他与他的文化和法律相一致的：这是真正的威胁。迈尔不只是打破或拒绝按照程序，他更选择要按照毛利人的法律。作为回应，对法官的裁决他公开揭示了法律的暴力行为。

这个“出席和缺勤”的确立，为了解空间活化通过差异（订购和分类），使＇听＇可能，最好是分析可能创造在哪些方面可以提出的定义或者说，什么必是须按照法律规定继续说出口的。

对取消抵押品赎回权的操作中引用的默认实例中，我们要问：什么是为了继续行使他们的权力而必须对当代政权的言论保持沉默的？如何在“主体”之前通过其他可能的阐明，在法律范围内排除网站产生的法律？在某种程度上，这样的构排除提供了任何言语行为可能性的条件，可以得出“未经审查的文字必然是不完整的”。理解为取消抵押品赎回权，审查通过产生无法形容的话语生产机制。

6. 暴力威胁 至于“哈卡党”的案例，它不能简单地认为是毛利人威胁了法律的权威，而是它并没有包含规则，边缘和自身违反的束缚。像沃克的激进的暴力潜力的描述，迈尔企图说karakia为相关的疾病提供了一些威胁的方式来解释法律的回应。因为法官们自己清楚，这里的威胁与其说是作为一个犯罪组织，不如说是反对＇法律＇这个概念的犯罪动机。这种威胁是在正义名义下的犯罪。如果像福柯指出，“政治权力是通过潜作战的形式永远重复地记载不平衡; 在社会机构，经济上不平等，语言中机构和它们自身再登记，那么这种行为可以被理解为意图重建自身秩序的叛乱。通过对一个类似的不公正现象唤起历史上不公正的排斥，这种行为可以被认为既是考古，又是家谱。至于考古，只要他们试图揭露他们如何被列入等级秩序或权力;而家谱，只要他们通过“恢复当地的知识”来寻求反抗单一的和绝对的话语。

因此，反殖民＇暴力＇的目的不是仅仅需要推翻殖民者，而是要取代压迫体制本身，正如萨特指出，“一石二鸟，同时摧毁压迫者和被压迫之人。留下一个死人和一个自由的人“通过这样来呼吁另外一套秩序，他们通过使赋予法律权威的镇压和排外透明化，让这些＇暴力＇行为威胁到现存系统。通过诉诸过去和现在的不公平，他们试图引起人们对法律权威和压制与排斥的差异之间关系的注意。如果被认为是行使或应用过度或不公平的，是因为法律失去了它的合法性。说什么法律规定被遗忘，激进主义使该法成为可能，可向出现不公正，非法和不公平的。过去的人物用这种方式来思考法律，没有返回到野蛮，而是天真地被压迫和迫害。法律，之所以成为法律，必须始终掩盖镇压作为刑事体内这个数字作为暴力或秩序的对立面。然而，在努力这样做，特别是当遇到挫折或挑战时，它必须小心地不可过度反应或激烈。

也许揭露法律，挑战它所谓的正义的行为比任何人身攻击制度本身更有力，它使法律被视为一种特定的文化热情的体现，因此双方为共同拉拢能干，吸纳能力，能够服务另一端。这一法律之间的使用和法律已在当前系统运行方式的重要的区别是，相信判决永远不会是最终的或普遍的，但总是局部的，个别的和不完整的。换言之，司法将永远不会在眼前，而只会在将来，从未做过，但即将要做。

附件2：外文原文一 Study of Issues over Public Hearing in Death Penalty Cases Abstract: The death penalty is involved in the most severe criminal offenses. Holding public hearing in these cases seems to be the best way to guarantee judicial fairness. A public hearing in death penalty cases is of important significance in safeguarding judicial fairness and protecting human rights, which has attracted a high level of attention domestically and internationally. This paper interprets the requirements of the United Nations’ related agencies for the public hearing of death penalty cases, defines the nature of public hearing in the aspects of rights and obligations, analyzes the special nature of the requirements for the public hearing of death penalty cases, introduces some practices and issues of the public hearing of death penalty cases in foreign countries, analyzes China’s present practice of the pubic hearing of death penalty cases and puts forward some suggestions and channels to realize it. Key words: Death penalty cases, public hearing, international standard, China’s practice ········· The hearing of death penalty cases shall strictly follow the international standards of criminal justice, especially relevant UN provisions regarding the public hearing. The public hearing includes public trial and public judgment, each of which consists of several aspects. The author intends to share some understandings of issues relating public trial and public judgment of death penalty cases in relation to the relevant UN documents. 1 Meanings and Requirements of Public Hearing 1.1 Rationale of Public Hearing in the Aspects of Rights and Obligations. The public hearing consists of a public trial and a public judgment. The public trial refers to a series of activities in court, i.e. examining the witnesses, processing the facts of the case, and admission of the evidence in the presence of the interested parties and other participants. The core of the public trial is the conducting of trial activities, which are comprised of presenting public prosecution bill and defense statement, questioning witnesses, verifying evidence and making last statement in courts. There are two requirements for the public trial in form: First, information shall be made public in advance including the name of the case, the criminal offense charged, the identity of the accused, the time and place of the court trial and the composition of the court members; and second, sufficient convenience shall be provided for the public to attend the hearing; any individuals shall be allowed to visit the court on the hearing and journalists shall be allowed to report the hearing. Participation in the public trial shall not be limited to certain types of people; with some exceptions prescribed by laws and regulations such as court deliberation, anyone that wishes to attend the hearing shall not be rejected; all the trial activities, especially the process of examining witnesses and examining evidence shall be made public and allow access for people to attend. ········ As for judgment, unless otherwise specified by law, judgment of any criminal cases shall be made public. It is the right of the accused to receive document of judgment, the accused can not waive or reject the state judicial organ’s pronouncement of the result of the case to the public. If the accused does not agree with the judgment, he can appeal or complain, but he can not stop the state judicial organ from making the judgment public. Public judgments not only safeguard the right of the accused to the judgment, but also reflect the fairness of the state judicature and fulfill the society’s right to know about the situation of the case. For this reason, the state’s responsibility of making judgments public can not be released because the accused gives up the right. 1.2 The Special Nature of Public Hearing of Death Penalty Cases Death penalty cases are different from ordinary criminal cases, because the life of the accused is involved. In some western countries, the accused of ordinary criminal cases can waive the right to trial. While in death penalty cases, even if the accused expresses his will to plea guilty, the public trial can not be exempted. ········· In death penalty cases the accused, his relatives and friends, and the general public pay more attention to the trial, hence the information disclosed shall be more detailed, including the basic information of the death row prisoner, the details of the case, and the grounds and reasons for the judgment. Except for individual cases, the total number, the commutation and the execution of death penalty cases of the nation and each local area shall be disclosed so that the public can understand state death penalty policy and various reasons for the fair management of cases. ······ Currently some countries in the world do not publish the relevant data on death penalty. For example, in Japan the public is not provided with the information on individual executions, but detailed aggregated statistics are provided. The UN Economic and Social Council has requested that the Secretary-General survey member states on their use of capital punishment at five-year intervals since 1973,7 but the response rate has been very low. In a survey on 62 countries that retain the death penalty, 87% did not respond at all, and only 4 countries reported on the offences upon which the death penalty may be imposed and on the total number of executions.8 ········· Some countries rational for retaining capital punishment is that capital punishment conforms to the national conditions, including the will of the people.12 It is of course a point of consideration whether the public are in favor of or want to retain death penalty or not. Before considering the will of the people, we should give the people information on death penalty. If the data of death penalty is not made known to the people, how can the necessity of death penalty be implemented based on it being the will of the people? Only by publishing the data of death penalty can the public possibly have the right understanding of death penalty; people can only put forward their opinions after knowing about the truth, and then can the government know the true will of the people. There is an obvious inconsistency when a state invokes the public opinions on one hand; while on the other hand deliberately withholds relevant information on the use of the death penalty from the public. If public opinions are really an important consideration for a country, it seems the government shall facilitate the access to the relevant information so as to make such public opinions more informed. It is unreasonable for a country to use the will of the people as an important reason to retain the death penalty but refuse to disclose to its own people the extent of death penalty. ········ The open information on the judgment and the execution of death penalty cases is of special and important significance to a person who faces the death penalty and his family. A person who has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to death still enjoys the due process rights and other safeguards on his rights before execution of the sentence. For example, the prisoner under death sentence “shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law”13, and “shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence”14. Failure to promptly provide the death row prisoner and his family information on the case may hinder their ability to exercise these rights, hence placing due process at risk. ········· The execution of death penalty cases shall also be made known to the public to protect the public’s right to know. The publishing of the judgment and execution of death penalty cases; allow victims of criminal cases and their relatives and friends to know that justice has been done and the criminals have been executed; allow the public to know the execution of specific cases and the overall situation of the state’s death penalty policy; and show some people who are likely to commit crimes the power and force of laws thus deterring serious crimes.19 2.Explorations of the Relevant Issues over Public Hearing in Death Penalty Cases in China Public hearing is the basic principle of China’s criminal justice system. Article 125 of China’s Constitution provides that “except in special circumstances as specified by law, all cases in the courts are heard in public.” Article 11 of China’s Criminal Law provides that “cases in the courts shall be heard in public, unless otherwise provided by this Law”. ············· 2.1 Make Preparations for the Public Hearing of Death Penalty Cases Article 151 of China’s Criminal Law provides that when a court has decided to open a court session, it shall proceed with the following work: “(1) To determine the members of the collegial panel; (2) to deliver to the accused a copy of the bill of prosecution of the procuratorate no later than ten days before the opening of the court session. If the accused has not retained a defender, he shall be informed that he may retain a defender or, when necessary, a legal aid lawyer may be appointed to serve as a defender for him; (3) to notify the procuratorate of the time and place of the court session three days before the opening of the session; (4) to summon the parties and notify the defenders, agents ad litem, witnesses, expert witnesses and interpreters, and deliver the summons and notices no later than three days before the opening of the court session; and (5) to announce, three days before the opening of the session, the subject matter of the case to be heard in public, the name of the accused and the time and place of the court session.” ······ 2.2 Attend the Hearing of Death Penalty Cases The most prominent manifestation of public hearings is to allow the public to visit the court of hearing. There are some constraints in attending court trials in China. For example, the capacity of the court room is generally limited and it may be not large enough for the people to sit in on hearings of death penalty cases. As a result, some can not attend court hearings, which affects the effect of public hearings. ········· 2.3 Open Court Records and Other Documents After all, only a limited number of people can attend court trials and some people can not arrive at the court on time for various reasons, and the visitors may not hear everything nor understand it correctly. For cases that have public hearings, it will improve the effect of public hearings if the court can publicize court trial records (transcript) through certain channels. Not every member of the public needs to read the complete court record of a certain case. People or organs that are obligated to supervise the case, the defense lawyer, people who are related to the case, news agencies that are interested in the case and scholars who study the case are the ones who will desire a full transcript of a given case. As a result, the publicity of court records differs from that of the judgment and can be made available only to those who have a need to it. As providing court records involve some cost, the court may charge those who need the records. Since public hearings can be attended and reported, people may know whether court trials are fair. 2.4 Modes of Public Judgment The transparency of the bill of prosecution and the judgment of death penalty cases, especially the reasons for judgment and law applied, not only reflects the public handling of the accused, but also plays the role of legal propagation and education. ······· Traditionally the judgment is publicized through posting a bulletin at the door of the court or public places, or publishing part of the content in the press, or publishing the collection of cases on the yearly basis. All three ways are used in China. However, there are limitations imposed by these types of posting in the time and place when publishing the judgment of death penalty. By posting bulletins, as only limited number of people can access the bulletins, hence the influence of publishing the judgment is limited. Reporting on death penalty cases in the press is not a formal way of publicity, which normally selectively publishes some cases from the angle of news reporting and does not include the complete judgment; compilation of cases has not been systemized in China, and the compilation is not structured and can not completely reflect death penalty cases. With the popularization of the internet, publishing the judgment of death cases in the internet can avoid the disadvantages of the traditional modes mentioned above. ········ 2.5 Open Hearing of Second Instance of Death Penalty Cases There is a fundamental difference between China’s court of second instance and that of foreign countries. The court of second instance in criminal cases of foreign countries normally does not deal with factual issues of the case but its legal issues, especially whether the procedure and evidence collection is legal. China’s second instance extensively reviews the issues of facts and law of the case and is not restricted to the issues raised in the appeal or counter-appeal. Consequently there is not much difference in the trial mode of the second instance comparing to the trial, which can be considered as the extension of the trial, and various stipulations of public hearings applicable to the trial shall also be applicable to the appeal session (second instance). ·········· 2.6 Transparency of the Review of Death Penalty Cases Starting from January 1, 2007, the review and approval power of death penalty has been taken back by the Supreme Court of China. This puts an end to the history of 26 years of partial delegation of the power of death penalty review. The Supreme Court’s centralized exercise of the review and approval of death penalty is of significance in guaranteeing the quality of death cases handling, safeguarding human rights, deploying the policy of less and more cautious death sentencing and unifying the applicable standards for the death penalty. After taking back the review and approval power of the death penalty, the Supreme Court promulgated some documents standardizing the review process of the death penalty. These documents included Provisions of the Supreme Court on Several Issues Concerning the Review of Death Penalty Cases, which establishes the procedures of interrogating the accused, investigating and verifying evidence and adopting the opinions of the defense lawyer, and improves the review process of death penalty. Remarkable achievements have been made in the review work of the death penalty. ······ According to the structure of China’s present Criminal Procedural Law, the review process of the death penalty is under “Part 3－Trial”. This implies that the law makers consider that the review process of the death penalty as a stage of the trial process. For this reason, after the Supreme Court took back the review and approval power of the death penalty, it shall further improve China’s review process of the Study of Issues over Public Hearing in Death Penalty Cases death penalty according to the law. Therefore, a series of principles of public hearing requirement and method for criminal trial should be observed in the death penalty review process, and the court should allow the prosecutors and defense lawyers participate the process. Thus, both parties’ procedural rights, especially that of the accused, can guarantee and the defendants may exercise the right to defense at the final stage of criminal procedure. Changing the administrative nature of China’s death penalty review process, according to the standards of due process, would improve every stage of the death penalty case. 3 Conclusions Various countries in the world have different opinions and practices with regards to retaining or abolishing death penalty. At present various countries shall make their own decisions according to their own situations. In the countries where death penalty is retained, death penalty cases shall be handled according to the principle of public hearing, established by international laws and domestic laws. If the domestic legislation and judicial practice of public hearings do not conform to the criteria of international human rights law and criminal justice or are not compatible to the public hearings of death penalty cases, relevant countries shall take measures to reform domestic legislation and practice. ······ The improvement of the public hearing of death penalty cases is necessary for the fair and public trial. A fair and public trial is conducive to the improvement of the overall criminal procedure system, to the further improvement of China’s legal system construction, to the implementation of provisions on safeguarding human rights in China’s constitution, and to the implementation of the international human rights and criminal justice standard. 外文原文二 Between Justice and Law in Aotearoa New Zealand：Two cases studies Stephen Prite Chaed ABSTRACT. Through two case studies, this essay examines the relationship between the operation and practice of law in Aotearoa New Zealand and the naming of the ‘unlawful’, ‘uncivil’ or ‘disorderly’ within a colonial context. Against the background of the apparent complicity between law and colonial interest and desire in Aotearoa, I argue that, in both the ‘Haka Party’ case (1979) and Mair v Wanganui City Council (1996), the acts of the defendants draw attention to the relationship between the authority of the law and the repression or exclusion of difference. According to the judges in both cases, the dictates of Maori law and custom were in conflict with the principles of ‘law and order’. Read in terms of colonial relations, the perceived relationship between Maori law and custom and the threat to ‘civilisation’, law and order reveals the way in which ‘the law’ has operated in a culturally biased manner and has reflected the interests of Pakeha (New Zealanders of European descent). Thus, the perceived threat of the challenge made to the law in either case can be seen as the threat to reveal it for what it is, to expose the violence that maintains it, and thus to open a space for critique. Perhaps more powerfully than any physical attack on the system itself, these acts which expose the law challenge it in the name of justice, making it possible for the law to be seen both as a reflection of a particular cultural interest and hence as co-opt-able, takeable and able to be made to serve another end, that of the other in the name of justice. KEY WORDS: colonial, ‘Haka Party’, justice, Mair, Maori law, New Zealand, Pakeha 1. THE VIOLENCE PROBLEM In 1987 the New Zealand government commissioned a report, the ‘Roper Report’ as it became known, which examined violence in a broad range of contexts. Although many commended the report, it was widely noted that very few submissions were received from the Maori community. Many critics suggested that the failure to consult Maori on such issues reflected the more general social and political inequalities which give rise to the social conditions that create violence in the first place. Titewhai Harawira, for example, argued that any report which considered the relationship between Maori and violence should consider the social and cultural context in which such violence occurs.1 In other words, it must take into account the uneven distribution of power and wealth within society and the ‘violence’ that establishes, maintains and is produced by such relations; it must look beyond matters of ‘law’, ‘order’ and ‘criminality’ to consider the historically and culturally specific conditions under which violence is produced. Thus, Harawira’s concern was not merely with what was in the report, but with what its approach toward violence passes over and leaves unaddressed: systematised, institutionalised racism implicit in the legal and criminal justice system. 2. REPRESENTING VIOLENCE: THE “HAKA PARTY CASE” In a survey of media reportage of crime in Aotearoa New Zealand, Spoonley discovered that: Even allowing for the over-representation of [Maori and Pacific Islanders] ::. in criminal behaviour :::newspapers are three times more likely to use labels such as Maori or Pacific Islander rather than Pakeha or European when describing cases of violent and sexual off ending.4 The use of such markers of identity in reports of criminal offences is both based upon and re-affirms prevalent assumptions and associations between ethnic groups and criminal behaviour. Indeed, Spoonley goes on to note that: “[i]naccurate or exaggerated reportage can also be seen in the way that certain activities (e.g. gang membership, rape, overstaying) tend to be associated with Maori/Pacific Island groups”.5 The point is further supported by a submission to the Press Council in 1986, which noted that, in an unpublished survey of 210 newspaper reports, only non-Pakeha [or non-European descended New Zealanders] were racially identified, and that minority labels were most often used in items about disorder, crime and violence (Spoonley). ``````````````````````` 3. MEDIA REPRESENTATIONS The media response to the incident quickly confirmed the racist tendencies outlined by Spoonley. The first newspaper headline on the front page of the Auckland Star read: ‘Gang Rampage at Varsity. Students at Haka Party Bashed’. The Maori and Pacific Islanders, most of them also students, were described as a ‘gang’, despite the fact that, as the article itself admits, they “were not wearing any identifying ‘patches’.···· Similarly, an editorial in the New Zealand Herald, headlined ‘No Place for Violence’, argued that the ‘haka’ was not intended to offend and that offence had not been taken in the past. The editor insisted that the university was a place for liberalism and tolerance and that the attack must have been planned, probably by ‘Maori radicals’, and was therefore not a spontaneous, but a deliberate, act. Theories began circulating about the possible identities of these ‘radicals’. The overwhelming conclusion in the media, with respect to the arrested ‘haka party attackers’, was that the law must be upheld if New Zealanders were to remain secure. `````````````````````````` It is worth making a point of comparison here to demonstrate the similarity and differences between Australian and New Zealand contexts. Like the New Zealand legal system, Australian law has recognised indigenous law to some extent. In particular, in Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) (1992) the High Court recognised native title and in the process overturned the notion that Australia was ever terra nullius, a notion that provided legal support to the belief that, despite the obvious presence of indigenous populations with systems of law and culture, “Australia in 1788 [w]as uninhabited by a sovereign or sovereigns or by people with institutions or laws.” ``````````````````````````` 4. LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS Sensing the urgency with which they needed to address the situation following the ‘Haka Party Case’, the Human Rights Commission collected examples of ‘Pakeha ideology’ and of the opposing Maori views and published a preliminary report, Racial Harmony in New Zealand – A Statement of Issues. The report was the result of a call for public submissions by the Human Rights Conciliator, who had asked respondents to philosophise about issues relating to the ‘Haka Party’ incident and He Taua’s taking of justice into their own hands. The study was divided into seven headings (‘All New Zealanders’, ‘Different Treatment’, ‘Intolerance/Tolerance’, ‘New Zealand as a Multi-cultural Society’, ‘Racism’, ‘Bi-culturalism, land, cultural identity and language’ and ‘Law/Rights’) and the report organised into two categories: ‘View One’, “based on the central theme that New Zealand is a mono-cultural society – that we are all New Zealanders”,18 and ‘View A’, which “places emphasis on the view that New Zealand is a society of diverse cultural groups”.19 Opposition to the ‘Haka Party attackers’ from ‘View One’ emerged with great clarity. Respondents described the ‘Haka Party attack’ as an “organised act of thuggery, almost a conspiracy of violence”, a “foolish unwarranted action by some misguided youths: a means of deciding an argument for primitive savages”. In the section on ‘Different Treatment’ they argued that special provision for Maori was ‘racist’ and that “to make matters blatant” would allow Maori to enjoy “civilised culture while enjoying special treatment for their own culture. Heathen practices of which ‘tapu’ and ‘tangis’ are examples bring inconvenience to the whole community:” echoing many ideas from the judgment, these respondents suggested that equality and democracy could only be achieved if Maori thought of themselves, primarily, as New Zealanders. Justice and equality therefore required the disavowal of difference; the assertion of Maori custom, law or identity was seen, from this position, as separatist and racist. Consequently, Maori themselves were blamed for racial tensions, ````````````````````` This view provides some explanation for the court’s decision. Indeed, as Walker notes, Blackwood’s response demonstrates the way ‘British justice’ and Pakeha notions of law and order have always treated with contempt assertions of Maori cultural and political integrity. ``````````````````` 5. CASE TWO:MAIR V WANGANUI DISTRICT COUNCIL Another revealing instance of the way ‘the law’ has typically taken the assertion of Maori law and custom as a threat is Mair v Wanganui District Court (1996). While not concerning any straightforward examples of violence, this case involved an act the presiding Judge chose to interpret as an attack on the authority of the law. Moreover, this particular case foregrounds the manner in which the Court, both as a physical and symbolic space, is a spatial and architectural embodiment of the relations of domination. The incident happened on 31 October 1995, when Ken Mair, a well-known Maori activist, was in court assisting a friend, who was the defendant on an assault charge. Mair indicated to the judge that he would like to undertake a karakia, or traditional Maori prayer before court proceedings were underway. Judge Adeane said: “it is not appropriate in my view for a Judge to be present in these particular circumstances during a karakia”.27 The problem with what Mair proposed was, not the saying of a karakia itself, but the attempt to “have a karakia, within [the Judge’s] ::. presence.”28 ``````````````````` The Judge’s ruling was thus not merely a response to Mair’s utterance, but a reaction to what he saw as “a warning”, a threat or challenge to which the law had to respond. Given the timing and location of the incident, in the Wanganui District Court in October 1995, few would have been unaware of Mair’s participation in the Moutoa Gardens’ occupation earlier that year in that very town. Given the frequent media portrayal of Mair as a ‘Maori radical’, who continually and strenuously campaigned against the Crown on matters of Maori sovereignty, many may indeed have doubted his respect for the law. Nevertheless, Mair did not openly challenge it: in Court, he followed the directions of the Judge in every respect except where it contravened Maori law. Mair’s actions in Court were consistent with his culture and his laws: this was the real threat. Mair did not merely break with or refuse to follow procedure, he instead chose to act according to Maori law. The Judge’s ruling, in response, reveals and exposes the violence of the law. ````````````````````` This establishment of ‘presences and absences’, understood as the activation of space through the creation of differences (ordering and classification) that make ‘hearing’ possible, might best be analysed in terms of the definition of what can be presented or said and what must, according to the law, remain unsaid. ······ The operation of foreclosure is tacitly referenced in those instances in which we ask: what must remain unspeakable for contemporary regimes of discourse to continue to exercise their power? How is the “subject” before the law produced through the exclusion of other possible sites of enunciation within the law? To the extent that such a constitutive exclusion provides the condition of possibility for any act of speech, it follows that “uncensoring the text is necessarily incomplete” ::. Understood as foreclosure, censorship produces discursive regimes through the production of the unspeakable.38 6. THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE As with the ‘Haka Party’ case, it is not simply the figure of ‘the Maori’ that threatens the law, but rather that which is not contained by the order, the marginal or repressed within the order itself. Like Walker’s description of the radical potential of violence, the threat of disorder associated with Mair’s attempts to say the karakia offers some explanation for the way the law responded. For, as the Judges themselves make clear, the threat here is not so much the crime as the notion of a crime organised or motivated by another law and against ‘the law’. Such a threat is a crime that acts in the name of justice. If, as Foucault observes, “[t]he role of political power ::. is perpetually to reinscribe [disequilibrium] ::. through a form of unspoken warfare; to reinscribe it in social institutions, in economic inequalities, in language, in the bodies themselves”,39 then such acts can be read as a form of insurgency aimed at (re)establishing their own order. By evoking their unjust exclusion against a similarly unjust history, such acts can be considered both archaeological in so far as they seek to expose how they have been inscribed and subjected within the hierarchical order or power; and genealogical, in so far as they seek to struggle against unitary and totalising discourses through the “reactivation of local knowledges”.40 ```````````` Thus, the aim of anti-colonial ‘violence’ need not be merely to overthrow the settler, but to displace the system of oppression itself; it is, as Sartre notes, “to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy the oppressor and the man he oppresses at the same time: there remain a dead man and a free man.”45 Through such appeals to another order, these ‘violent’ acts threaten the present system, by the way in which they make visible the repressions or exclusions which give ‘the law’ authority. Through recourse to past and present injustice, they attempt to draw attention to the relationship between the authority of the law and the repression or exclusion of difference. For the law loses it legitimacy if is seen to be exercised or applied excessively or unfairly. By saying what the law requires to be forgotten, radicalism makes it possible that the law may be made to appear unjust, illegitimate and unfair. It is in this way that the figure of the past returns to haunt the law, returning not as the savage, but as the innocent, the oppressed and the persecuted. The law, in order to be law, must always conceal this figure by repressing it as the body of the criminal, as violence or the antithesis of order. And yet, in its efforts to do so, especially when confronted or challenged, it must be careful not to respond excessively or violently. `````````````````` ```````````` Perhaps more powerfully than any physical attack on the system itself, the act of exposing the law, of challenging it in the name of justice, makes it possible for the law to be seen both as a reflection of a particular cultural interest and hence as co-opt-able, ‘take-able’ and able to be made to serve another end, that of the other in the name of justice. The important difference between this use of law and the way the law has operated in the current system would be the belief that judgment is never final or universal, but always partial, positioned and incomplete. In other words, justice would never be in the present, but only ever in the future, never done but always to be done.