{{B}}? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?System of Criminal Trial{{/B}} ? ?How
efficient is our system of criminal trial? Does it really do the basic job we
ask of it— convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent? It is often said
that the British trail system is more like a game than a serious attempt to do
justice. The lawyers on each side are so en- grossed in playing hard to win,
challenging each other and the judge on technical points, that the object of
finding out the truth is almost forgotten. All the effort is concentrated on the
big day, on the dramatic cross examination of the key witnesses in front of the
jury. Critics like to compare our "adversarial" system (resembling two
adversaries engaged in a contest) with the continental "inquisitorial" system,
under which the judge plays a more important inquiring role. ? ?In
early times, in the Middle Ages, the systems of trial across Europe were
similar. At that time trial by "ordeal"—especially a religious event—was the
main way of testing guilt or innocence. When this way eventually abandoned the
two systems parted company. On the continent church-trained legal officials took
over the function of both prosecuting and judging, while in England these were
largely left to lay people, the Justice of the Peace and this meant that all the
evidence had to be put to them orally, this historical accident dominates
procedure even today, with all evidence being given in open court by word of
mouth on the crucial day. ? ?On the other hand, in France for
instance, all the evidence is written before the trial under supervision by an
investigating judge. ?This exhaustive pretrial looks very undramatic; much
of it is just a public checking of the written records already
gathered. ? ?The Americans adopted the British system lock, stock
and barrel and enshrined it in their constitution. But, while the basic features
of our systems are common, there are now significant differences in the way
serious cases are handled. First, because the U. S.A. has virtually no contempt
of court laws to prevent pretrial publicity in the newspaper and on television,
Americans lawyers are allowed to question jurors about knowledge and
beliefs. ? ?In Britain this is virtually never allowed, and a
random selection of jurors who are presumed not to be prejudiced are empanelled.
Secondly, there is no separate profession of barrister in the United States, and
both prosecution and defense lawyers who are to present cases in court prepare
them themselves. They go out and visit the scene, track down and interview
witnesses, and familiarize themselves personally with the background. In Britain
it is the solicitor who prepares the case, and the barrister who appears in
court is not even slowed to meet witness beforehand. British barristers also
alternate doing both prosecution and defense work. Being kept distant from the
preparation and regularly appearing for both sides, barristers are said to avoid
becoming too personally involved, and can approach cases more dispassionately.
American lawyers, however, often know their cases better. ?
?Reformers rightly want to learn from other countries’ mistakes and
successes. But what is clear is that justice systems, largely because they are
the result of long historical growth, are peculiarly difficult to adapt
piecemeal.
{{B}}? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?System of Criminal Trial{{/B}} ? ?How
efficient is our system of criminal trial? Does it really do the basic job we
ask of it— convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent? It is often said
that the British trail system is more like a game than a serious attempt to do
justice. The lawyers on each side are so en- grossed in playing hard to win,
challenging each other and the judge on technical points, that the object of
finding out the truth is almost forgotten. All the effort is concentrated on the
big day, on the dramatic cross examination of the key witnesses in front of the
jury. Critics like to compare our "adversarial" system (resembling two
adversaries engaged in a contest) with the continental "inquisitorial" system,
under which the judge plays a more important inquiring role. ? ?In
early times, in the Middle Ages, the systems of trial across Europe were
similar. At that time trial by "ordeal"—especially a religious event—was the
main way of testing guilt or innocence. When this way eventually abandoned the
two systems parted company. On the continent church-trained legal officials took
over the function of both prosecuting and judging, while in England these were
largely left to lay people, the Justice of the Peace and this meant that all the
evidence had to be put to them orally, this historical accident dominates
procedure even today, with all evidence being given in open court by word of
mouth on the crucial day. ? ?On the other hand, in France for
instance, all the evidence is written before the trial under supervision by an
investigating judge. ?This exhaustive pretrial looks very undramatic; much
of it is just a public checking of the written records already
gathered. ? ?The Americans adopted the British system lock, stock
and barrel and enshrined it in their constitution. But, while the basic features
of our systems are common, there are now significant differences in the way
serious cases are handled. First, because the U. S.A. has virtually no contempt
of court laws to prevent pretrial publicity in the newspaper and on television,
Americans lawyers are allowed to question jurors about knowledge and
beliefs. ? ?In Britain this is virtually never allowed, and a
random selection of jurors who are presumed not to be prejudiced are empanelled.
Secondly, there is no separate profession of barrister in the United States, and
both prosecution and defense lawyers who are to present cases in court prepare
them themselves. They go out and visit the scene, track down and interview
witnesses, and familiarize themselves personally with the background. In Britain
it is the solicitor who prepares the case, and the barrister who appears in
court is not even slowed to meet witness beforehand. British barristers also
alternate doing both prosecution and defense work. Being kept distant from the
preparation and regularly appearing for both sides, barristers are said to avoid
becoming too personally involved, and can approach cases more dispassionately.
American lawyers, however, often know their cases better. ?
?Reformers rightly want to learn from other countries’ mistakes and
successes. But what is clear is that justice systems, largely because they are
the result of long historical growth, are peculiarly difficult to adapt
piecemeal.
In Britain, newspapers______.
A.do the same as American newspapers do B.are not interested in publishing details about the trial before it takes place C.are not allowed to publish details about the trial before it takes place D.are allowed to publish details about the trial before it takes place
单选集
