六、陪审制在欧洲其他国家的移植和传播
由于受法国的影响,欧洲大陆的其他国家也开始尝试移植陪审制。不过,欧洲各国并没有以英国的陪审制为参照对象,而是直接以法国的陪审制为建构蓝本。奥地利(1850年)、德意志帝国(1877年)、意大利(1888年)、比利时(1808年)、西班牙(1812年)、沙皇俄国(1866年)等分别通过立法建立了几乎与法国完全相同的陪审制(247),但大部分国家最终走向了参审制。因此,不少学者惊呼,传统的陪审团制度已日趋衰微。(248)然而,值得特别注意的是,近年来,俄罗斯(1993年)和西班牙(1995年)分别在刑事诉讼中重新引入了陪审制(249),引起了普遍的关注。但俄罗斯和西班牙的陪审制是否可如同法国大革命时期的陪审制一样成为欧洲大陆刑事诉讼改革的催化剂?这是一个十分有趣的问题,值得进一步研究和关注。(250)
【注释】
(1)William Roumier,L’avenir du jury criminel,LGDJ,2003,p.1 et s.
(2)当时欧洲史学界普遍有泛日耳曼的倾向。因此,英国陪审制源自日耳曼的论点在当时可谓通说,参见Heinrich Brunner,Die Entstehung der Schwurgerichte,Berlin,1872。
(3)I Heinrich Brunner,Die Entstehung der Schwurgerichte,Berlin,1872,III,381:BK. III,ch.XXIII.
(4)William Roumier,L’avenir du jury criminel,LGDJ,2003,p.1 et s.
(5)William Roumier,L’avenir du jury criminel,LGDJ,2003,p.1 et s.
(6)Sir Frederick Pollock and F.W.Maitland,The History of English Law(2nded.,Cambridge,1895),I,140-142.
(7)William Roumier,L’avenir du jury criminel,LGDJ,2003,p.87.
(8)Ibid.,p.1 et s.
(9)这一观点至今依然是主流观点,参见W.S.Holdsworth,A History of English Law,
(10)William Stubbs,Constitutional History of England,Oxford,I,p.246.
(11)F.W.Maitland,The Constitutional History of England,Cambridge,1908,reprinted 1961,p.120.
(12)Sir Frederick Pollock and F.W.Maitland,The History of English Law(2nded.,Cambridge,1895),I,140-142.
(13)C.H.Haskins,Norman Institutions[Harvard Historical Studies,XXIV],(Cambridge, Mss.,1918),ch.vi,“The Early Norman Jury”,pp.196238;C.H.Haskin,“The Early Norman Jury”,A.H.R.,VIII(1903),613-640.
(14)William Stubbs,Constitutional History of England,Oxford,I,p.246.
(15)十二领主主要负责确定被告人是否具有良好声誉以及被告人所应接受之神裁法的严厉程度,参见Dorothy Whitelock(ed.),English Historical Documents,c.500-1042,Oxford, 1955,p.7。
(16)William Stubbs,Constitutional History of England,Oxford,I,p.655.
(17)Pollock and Maitland,History of English Law,I,p.142.但也有学者指出,“虽然《埃塞雷德二世法典》并不直接适用于盎格鲁—撒克逊地区,但并不能据此推断,盎格鲁—撒克逊地区不会效仿丹麦地区的做法”。参见Naomi D.Hurnard,“The Jury of Presentment and the Assize of Clarendon”,E.H.R.,L VI(1941),pp.374-410。
(18)Pollock and Maitland,History of English Law,I,p.143.
(19)Paul Vinogradoff,English Society in the Eleventh Century,Oxford,1908,p.7.
(20)Ibid.,p.8.
(21)关于对其观点的批评,参见Hurnard,Jury of Presentment,E.H.R.,L VI,p.378;
(22)Sir F.M.Stenton,Anglo-Saxon England[Oxford History of England],2nded.,Oxford, 1947,p.503.
(23)Doris M.Stenton,English Justice,p.15;F.M.Stenton,Anglo-Saxon England, p.643,n.2;H.G.Richardson and G.O.Sayles,The Governance of Mediaeval England from the Conquest to Magna Carta(Edinburgh),1963,p.205;David Douglas,William the Conqueror(Berkeley and Los Angeles,1964),p.309.
(24)Marie Fauroux(ed.),Recueil des Actes des Ducs de Normandie(911-1066)[Mémoires de la Sociétédes Antiquaires de Normandie],Caen,1961.
(25)也有学者虽承认相关的文献证据欠缺,但却未断言当时的诺曼底地区不存在王室信息调查制度。参见Van Caenegem,Royal Writs,p.57,n.2。
(26)Michel Bouard,“De la Neustrie Carolingienneàla Normandie féodale:continuitéou discontinuité?”,Bull.Inst.Hist.Res.,XXVIII(1955),pp.1-14.
(27)Turner,“The origins of the Medieval English Jury:Frankish,English,or Scandinavian?”,in The Journal of British Studies,Vol.7,No.2,May 1968.
(28)Douglas,William the Conqueror,p.309.
(29)据笔者所掌握的中文资料,目前中国学界有关陪审制起源问题的论述大抵从一“学说”而定,但却未给出选择这一学说的理由(或者自行认定为“通说”)。笔者以为,这种论说方式其实并不严谨,也不符合法史学研究的现状。参见焦诸华:《英国陪审制度的历史嬗变及存废之争》,载《政治与法律》,2001(5),70~72页;李昌道、董茂云:《陪审制度比较研究》,载《比较法研究》,2003(1),59~60页;王利明:《我国陪审制度研究》,载《浙江社会科学》, 2000(1),55~56页。
(30)Turner,“The origins of the Medieval English Jury:Frankish,English,or Scandinavian?”,in The Journal of British Studies,Vol.7,No.2,May 1968,p.10.
(31)近年来,传统的大陆法系国家俄罗斯(1993年)和西班牙(1995年)较为成功地重建了陪审团制度,引起了学者们的广泛关注。这事实上也为陪审制的非专属性提供了一个很好的佐证。参见Stephen C.Thaman,“Europe’s new jury systems:the cases of Spain and Russia”,in Law and Contemporary Problems,p.1。
(32)详见本书第一章第二节及第三节。
(33)The Criminal Jury Old and New:Jury Power from Early Times to the Present Day,Waterside Press,2004,p.9 et s.
(34)但事实上,英国在18世纪对大部分的普通盗窃罪都不适用死刑。在实践中,适用死刑的财产犯罪主要局限于那些情节比较严重的盗窃罪,尤其是那些可能对人身造成伤害的犯罪(如入室行窃及抢劫罪等)。参见John H.Langbein,“The English criminal trial jury on the eve of the French Revolution”,in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker&Humblot,Berlin,1987。
(35)叛国罪虽不属于重罪,但也可判处死刑。英国对叛国罪同样采用陪审团审判。
(36)伦敦和与米德尔塞克斯的毗邻郡则设有特殊的巡回衡平法院(assize-equivalent),即老贝里法院(the Old Bailey)。
(37)参见John H.Langbein,“T he criminal trial before the lawyers”,45 University of Chicago Law Review,p.263;John H.Langbein,“Shaping the eighteenth-century criminal trial:A view from the Ryder sources”,50 University of Chicago Law Review 1,1983,pp. 37-41。
(38)英国直到1829年才通过《罗伯特庇尔爵士城市警察法令》(Sir Robert Peel’s Metropolitan Police Act)设立了警察局(bobbies)。而50年后(1879年),英国才设立检察长制度,但仅适用于数量相当有限的严重犯罪。参见Philip B.Kurland&D.W.M.Waters,“Public Prosecution in England,1854—1879:An Essay in English Legislative History”,1959 Duke Law Journal, p.493;David Freestone&J.C.Richardson,“The Making of English Criminal Law:Sir John Jervis and His Acts”,1980 Criminal Law Review 5。
(39)但到了19世纪,随着贵族数量的减少以及英国都市化规模的扩张,愿意无偿担任治安法官职责的显赫人士越来越少。英国政府被迫开始向一些重要人物支付报酬,聘请他们担任治安法官以履行审前调查之职。参见John H.Langbein,“Shaping the Eighteenth-Century Criminal Trial:A View from the Ryder Sources”,50 University of Chicago Law Review 1,1983,p.57。
(40)参见John M.Beattie,Crime and the Courts in England:1660—1800,Princeton,N.J./
(41)如果被起诉之罪名系重罪,则我们称这一起诉文件为重罪起诉书(indictment),而如果被起诉之罪名为重罪以外的轻罪或即决罪,则我们称这一起诉文件为轻罪起诉书(information)。本部分如未作特别说明,起诉书均专指重罪起诉书。
(42)布莱克斯通称他们为郡里最具身份的绅士(gentlemen of the best figure in the county),参见William Blackstone,Commentaries on the Laws of England(4.vols.),Oxford 1765—1789, IV,p.299。
(43)陪审团裁判是非常设法庭的裁判,因此,立法大抵会设几个庭期(通常是4个)进行案件的集中审理。而大陪审团则会在庭期开始前数天集合,进行必要的审前程序及作出指控与否的裁决。
(44)See John M.Beattie,“Crime and the Courts in Surrey:1736—1753”,in Crime in England 1550—1800(J.S.Cockburn,ed.),Princeton,N.J.1977,p.153 et s.
(45)John H.Langbein,“The English criminal trial jury on the eve of the French Revolution”, in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker&Humblot,Berlin,1987,pp.24-25.
(46)See 7&8 Wil.3,c.32,§4(1696).
(47)See John H.Baker,“Criminal Courts and Procedure at Common Law 1550—1800”,in Crime in England 1550—1800(J.S.Cockburn,ed.),Princeton,N.J.1977,p.23.
(48)Douglas Hay,War,Death and Theft in the Eighteenth Century:The Record of the English Courts,Past and Present(No.95)(May 1982),p.117 and p.154.
(49)Ibid.,p.154.
(50)See John H.Langbein,“The English criminal trial jury on the eve of the French Revolution”,in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker&Humblot,Berlin,1987,p.25.
(51)Martin,Madan,Thoughts on Executive Justice,With Respect to Our Criminal Laws, Particularly on the Circuits,London 1785,(2d ed.)pp.148-150,cited by John H.Langbein,“The English criminal trial jury on the eve of the French Revolution”,in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker& Humblot,Berlin,1987,note 35.
(52)Martin,Madan,Thoughts on Executive Justice,With Respect to Our Criminal Laws, Particularly on the Circuits,London 1785,(2d ed.)pp.148-150,cited by John H.Langbein,“The English criminal trial jury on the eve of the French Revolution”,in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker& Humblot,Berlin,1987,note 35.
(53)See John H.Langbein,“The English criminal trial jury on the eve of the French Revolution”,in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker&Humblot,Berlin,1987,p.25.
(54)See 6 Wil.3,c.4(1694)(apothecaries);7&8 Wil.3,c.21(1696)(seaman); J.Shaw,Parish Law,London 1750,(7thed.)369(attorneys,butchers,clergymen).
(55)当然,郡长还得选出另外48名市民担任民事案件的候选陪审员。
(56)John M.Beattie,Crime and the Courts in England:1660—1800,Princeton,N.J./Oxford 1985,p.164.
(57)John H.Langbein,“The English criminal trial jury on the eve of the French Revolution”, in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker&Humblot,Berlin,1987,pp.25-26.
(58)Ibid.,p.26.
(59)7&8 Wil.3,c.32,§6(1696).
(60)Thomas A.Green,“The English criminal jury and law-finding traditions on the eve of the French Revolution”,in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker&Humblot,Berlin,1987,p.41 et s.
(61)J.Impey,The Office of Sheriff,London,1786,p.341.
(62)在18世纪早期,陪审团通常采用集中合议的方式审判案件,即在听取数场庭审后一起进行合议,并同时对数个案件作出判决。因此,陪审团审判案件的速度极快。而从18世纪30年代起,陪审团便必须在每个案件庭审结束后立即进行合议并作出判决。但在大部分案件中,陪审团并不需要离开法庭进行合议,而只需简单地集合在一起几分钟甚至几秒钟便可在判决问题上取得一致意见。因此,判决的速度非常之快。参见Michael Zander Qc,England and Wales Report,in Le jury dans le procès pénal au XXIe siècle,Conférence internationale,Syracuse, Italie,26-29 mai 1999,Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal(RIDP),1eet 2etrimestres 2001, p.142 et s。
(63)Michael Zander Qc,England and Wales Report,in Le jury dans le procès pénal au XXIe siècle,Conférence internationale,Syracuse,Italie,2629 mai 1999,Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal(RIDP),1eet 2etrimestres 2001,p.142 et s.
(64)John H.Langbein,“The English criminal trial jury on the eve of the French Revolution”, in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker&Humblot,Berlin,1987,p.28.
(65)John H.Baker,“Criminal Courts and Procedure at Common Law 1550—1800”,in Crime in England 1550—1800(J.S.Cockburn,ed.),Princeton,N.J.1977,p.36.
(66)John H.Langbein,“The English criminal trial jury on the eve of the French Revolution”, in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker&Humblot,Berlin,1987,p.29.
(67)在现代,传讯程序一般设在庭审程序前,可能持续几周、几个月甚至更长。
(68)被告人也可承认有罪,但在18世纪,还未知有被告人认罪的情况。参见John H.Langbein,“The criminal trial before the lawyers”,45 University of Chicago Law Review, pp.278-279;John H.Langbein,“Shaping the eighteenth-century criminal trial:A view from the Ryder sources”,50 University of Chicago Law Review 1,1983,p.121。
(69)See John H.Langbein,“The English criminal trial jury on the eve of the French Revolution”,in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker&Humblot,Berlin,1987,p.30.
(70)在某些刑事案件尤其是那些证据不甚充分的案件中,负责案件调查的治安法官可能与刑事案件的共同被告人进行交易——如果该共同被告人愿意作为控方证人出庭作证,则控方保证在本案中不起诉这一共同被告人。
(71)John H.Langbein,“The English criminal trial jury on the eve of the French Revolution”, in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker&Humblot,Berlin,1987,p.31.
(72)Ibid.,p.32.
(73)See John H.Langbein,“The English criminal trial jury on the eve of the French Revolution”,in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker&Humblot,Berlin,1987,p.33.
(74)John H.Langbein,“Torture and Plea Bargaining”,46 University of Chicago Law Review 3,1978,pp.1-8.
(75)John H.Langbein,“The English criminal trial jury on the eve of the French Revolution”, in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker&Humblot,Berlin,1987,p.33.
(76)John H.Langbein,“The English criminal trial jury on the eve of the French Revolution”, in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker&Humblot,Berlin,1987,p.33.
(77)参见施鹏鹏:《法国刑事诉讼证人作证制度研究》,载何家弘主编:《证据学论坛》,第10卷,535页及以下,北京,中国检察出版社,2005。
(78)Edward Coke,First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England,on Commentary upon Littleton,London 1628,155b.
(79)笔者在自己的硕士学位论文中对此有较为详尽的研究。参见施鹏鹏:《法国参审制及其借鉴意义》,西南政法大学2004年硕士学位论文,31页及以下。
(80)Thomas A.Green,“The English criminal trial jury and the law-finding traditions on the eve of the French Revolution”,in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker&Humblot,Berlin,1987,p.41 et s.
(81)See John H.Langbein,“Shaping the eighteenth-century criminal trial:A View from the Ryder sources”,50 University of Chicago Law Review 1,1983,p.84.
(82)William Blackstone,Commentaries on the Laws of England(4.vols.),Oxford 1765—1789,IV,p.239.
(83)T homas A.Green,“T he English criminal trial jury and the law-finding traditions on the eve of the French Revolution”,in T he T rial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.A ntonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker&H umblot,Berlin,1987, p.41 et s.
(84)See John H.Langbein,“The criminal trial before the lawyers”,45 University of Chicago Law Review,pp.284-300.
(85)See John H.Langbein,“Shaping the eighteenth-century criminal trial:A view from the Ryder sources”,50 University of Chicago Law Review 1,1983,pp.19-21.
(86)直到2003年(《刑事司法法》),英国才对禁止双重危险原则进行了修改。参见“Attacks on the jury:the 20thCentury”,in Jury Power from Early Times to the Present Day,Waterside Press,2004,p.125 et s。
(87)See John H.Langbein,“Shaping the eighteenth-century criminal trial:A view from the Ryder sources”,50 University of Chicago Law Review 1,1983,pp.19-21.
(88)Sir W.Blackstone(1791),Commentaires on the laws of England,Vol.3,p.379.
(89)Sir W.Blackstone(1791),Commentaires on the laws of England,Vol.4,p.349.
(90)布莱克斯通在《英国法评论》中便介绍了当时法国及土耳其殖民者在殖民地的严刑峻法,“(在这些地方),法官有权随意作出即时判决,监禁、流放或处决任何政府所厌恶的人”。参见Sir W.Blackstone(1791),Commentaires on the laws of England,Vol.1,pp.325326,p.349。
(91)在殖民地,殖民者事实上享有很少的宪法权利。从这个意义上讲,陪审制是当时殖民者较为普遍的一种政治诉求。诚如杰斐逊(Jefferson)所言,“如果让我在‘将人民排除在立法部门之外’与‘将人民排除在司法部门在外’选择一种,我将选择前者,因为法律的执行要比制定法律重要得多”。参见J.P.Boyd,The Papers of Thomas Jefferson,Vol.15,1958,p.283。
(92)See Richard Vogler,“The international development of the jury:The role of the British Empire”,in Le jury dans le procès pénal au XXIe siècle,Conférence internationale,Syracuse, Italie,2629 mai 1999,Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal(RIDP),1eet 2etrimestres 2001, p.525.
(93)See R.Knoxmawer,“Juries and assessors in criminal trials in some Commonwealth countries:A preliminary survey”,International and Comparative Law Quarterly,1961,pp.892898.
(94)这是第一批移植英国陪审制的殖民地。参见J.Moore,The jury,tool of kings,palladium of liberty,1973,pp.9799;H.M.Hyman,&C.M.Tarrant,“Aspects of American trial jury history”,in R.J.Simon(ed),The Jury System in America:A critical overview,1975,pp. 23-44。
(95)See A.Walson(1998),“The grand jury in England’s past and America’s present”,162 Justice of the Peace,pp.839-844.
(96)J.Moore,The jury,tool of kings,palladium of liberty,1973,pp.9799;H.M.Hyman,&C.M.Tarrant,“Aspects of American trial jury history”,in R.J.Simon(ed),The Jury System in America:A critical overview,1975,p.110.
(97)Olson,Parliament,Empire and Parliamentary Law 1776,in J.Pocock(ed.),Three British Revolutions,1641,1688,1776,1989,pp.288-322.
(98)See W.Forsyth,A History of Trial by Jury,1971,reprint from 1852,pp.289-294.
(99)J.P.Boyd,The Papers of Thomas Jefferson,Vol.15,1958,p.269.
(100)Cited in A.W.Alschuler&A.G.Desis(1994),“A brief history of the criminal jury in the United States”,61 University of Chicago Law Review,p.871.
(101)See A.W.Alschuler&A.G.Desis(1994),“A brief history of the criminal jury in the United States”,61 University of Chicago Law Review,pp.889-897.
(102)See Strauder v.W.Virginia 100 US 300(1879).
(103)See A.W.Alschuler&A.G.Desis(1994),“A brief history of the criminal jury in the United States”,61 University of Chicago Law Review,p.871.
(104)14 Geo III,c.83.
(105)See G.Parker(1987),“Trial by jury in Canada”,8 Journal of Legal History,pp.178-189.
(106)G.Parker,“Trial by jury in Canada”,8 Journal of Legal History,p.180.
(107)See P.Romney,“From constitutionalism to legalism:Trial by jury,responsible government and the rule of law in Canadian political culture”,7 Law&History Review,1989,pp.121-174.
(108)See M.P.Jain(1990),Outlines of Indian Legal History,pp.33-34.
(109)13 Geo.III,c.63.
(110)T.K.Banarjee,Background to the Indian Criminal Law,1990,pp.276-270.
(111)Ibid.,p.277.
(112)Calcutta Review(1846),cited in H.S.BH A TIA(1978),Origin&Development of legal and political system in India,p.132.
(113)See T.K.Banarjee,Background to the Indian Criminal Law,1990,pp.267-282.
(114)Ibid.,p.283.
(115)See A.Gledhill,The Republic of India,The development of its law and constitution, 1964,pp.229-230.
(116)T.K.Banarjee,Background to the Indian Criminal Law,1990,p.288.
(117)T.K.Banarjee,Background to the Indian Criminal Law,1990,p.288.
(118)1960年,在印度法律委员会的推动下,印度11个州先后废除了陪审制,而其余的州也纷纷效仿。参见R.Knoxmawer,“Juries and assessors in criminal trials in some Commonwealth countries:A preliminary survey”,International and Comparative Law Quarterly,1961,p.893。
(119)R.Knoxmawer,“Juries and assessors in criminal trials in some Commonwealth countries: A preliminary survey”,International and Comparative Law Quarterly,1961,p.893.
(120)See A.C.Castles,1991,An Introduction to Australian Legal History,1991,pp.32 36;D.Neal,Journal of Legal History,Law and Authority:The Campaign for trial by jury in New South Wales,8,1987,pp.107-128,pp.111-112;M.Chesteman,“Criminal trial juries in Australia:from Penal Colonies to a Federal Democracy”,62(2),Law&Contemporary Problems,1999,pp.69-102,pp.69-71.
(121)See A.C.Castles,1991,An Introduction to Australian Legal History,1991,p.6.
(122)See A.C.Castles,1991,An Introduction to Australian Legal History,1991,p.6.
(123)J.M.Bennett,“The establishment of jury trial in New South Wales”,3 Sydney Law Review,1960,pp.463-485.
(124)Cited in J.M.Bennett,“The establishment of jury trial in New South Wales”,3 Sydney Law Review,1960,p.466.(www.xing528.com)
(125)但陪审制的支持者们却认为,大概有1 000名可担任陪审员之职,其中至少有80%从未被定罪过。参见Bennett,“The establishment of jury trial in New South Wales”,3 Sydney Law Review,1960,p.469。
(126)C.H.Currey(1968),The brothers bent,p.66.
(127)J.M.Bennett,“The establishment of jury trial in New South Wales”,3 Sydney Law Review,1960.p.467.
(128)军事法院直到1839年才被撤销,3 Vict.,c.11。
(129)4 Geo IV c.96.
(130)See Sydney Gazette.,21stoctobre 1824,p.3.
(131)J.M.Bennett(1974),A History of the Supreme Court of New South Wales,pp.81-82.
(132)Cited in J.M.Bennett(1974),A History of the Supreme Court of New South Wales,p.82.
(133)9 Geo IV,c83,s.5.
(134)3 Vict.,c.11.
(135)2 Will IV,c.3.
(136)See J.M.Bennett,“The establishment of jury trial in New South Wales”,3 Sydney Law Review,1960,pp.473-479.
(137)11 Vict.C.20.
(138)See J.M.Bennett,“The establishment of jury trial in New South Wales”,3 Sydney Law Review,1960,pp.482-483.
(139)Commonwealth of Australia Act 1901.
(140)See P.R.Weems(1984),“A comparison of jury selection procedures for criminal trials in New South Wales and California”,10(2),Sydney Law Review,pp.330-351,p.336,n.8.
(141)但依然有州保留了歧视妇女的条款,参见“Queensland Criminal Justice Commission”(1991),The jury system in criminal trials in Queensland:An issues paper,p.14。
(142)J.M.Bennett,“The establishment of jury trial in New South Wales”,3 Sydney Law Review,1960,pp.463-485.
(143)See J.H.Jeary(1960/1),“Trial by jury and trial with the aid of assessors in the Superior Courts of British African Territories”,1-III,4(3)(1960),Journal of African Law, pp.133146,5(1)(1961),pp.3647,5(2)(1961),pp.8298.
(144)See J.H.Jeary(1960/1),“Trial by jury and trial with the aid of assessors in the Superior Courts of British African Territories”,1-III,4(3)(1960),Journal of African Law, pp.133146,5(1)(1961),pp.3647,5(2)(1961),pp.8298.
(145)See J.H.Jeary(1960/1),“Trial by jury and trial with the aid of assessors in the Superior Courts of British African Territories”,1-III,4(3)(1960),Journal of African Law, pp.133146,5(1)(1961),pp.3647,5(2)(1961),pp.8298.
(146)Criminal Procedure Ordinance.
(147)Criminal Procedure Ordinance,p.42.
(148)M.A.Adam,“Trial by jury in Southern Rhodesia”,2(1),Rhodesia and Nyasaland Law Journal,1964,pp.28-52.
(149)详见本节第二部分“陪审制在印度殖民地的传播”。
(150)Sir John Gray,“Opinions of assessors in criminal trials in East Africa as to native custom”,2(1)Journal of African Law,1958,pp.518;B.Macaulay,“Assessors in criminal trials in Ghana:A study from without”,7(1)Journal of African Law,1963,pp.1846;L.A.A.Kyando& C.M.Peter,“Lay people in the administration of criminal justice:The law and practice in Tanzania”,5 African Journal of International and Comparative law,1993,pp.661682.P.Duff,“The evolution of trial by judge and assessors in Fiji”,21 Journal of Pacific Studies,1997,pp.189-213.
(151)J.H.Jeary(1960/1),“Trial by jury and trial with the aid of assessors in the Superior Courts of British African Territories”,1-III,4(3)(1960),Journal of African Law,pp.133 146,5(1)(1961),pp.36-47,5(2)(1961),p.96.
(152)See E.Kahn(1991/3),“Restore the jury?Or reform?Reform?Aren’t things bad enough already?”, In South African Law Journal,108(1991),pp.672687;109(1992),pp.87111;307318;666679 and 110(1993),pp.322337,(1991),p.681;A.Sachs(1973),Justice in South Africa,p.38.
(153)See E.Kahn(1991/3),“Restore the jury?Or reform?Reform?Aren’t things bad enough already?”,In South African Law Journal,p.88.
(154)P.R.Spiller,“The jury system in Early Natal”(1846—1874),8 Journal of Legal History,1987,p.143.
(155)Ibid.,p.134.
(156)Ibid.,p.143.
(157)Richard Vogler,“The international development of the jury:The role of the British Empire”,in Le jury dans le procès pénal au XXIe siècle,Conférence internationale,Syracuse,Italie, 2629 mai 1999,Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal(RIDP),1eet 2etrimestres 2001,p.544.
(158)See G.T.Morice,“The administration of criminal law in South Africa”,37 South African Law Journal,1920,pp.131-138.
(159)See J.Dugard(1994),“Human rights and the rule of law in Post Apartheid South Africa”,in R.A.Light&B.de Villiers(eds),South Africa’s crisis of Constitutional Democracy,Can the U.S.Constitution help?,pp.122-142.
(160)See G.T.Morice,“The administration of criminal law in South Africa”,37 South African Law Journal,1920,pp.131-138.
(161)Ibid.,p.137.
(162)F.G.Richings,“Assessors in South African Criminal Jury Trials”,Criminal Law Review, 1976,pp.106-116.
(163)D.Van Zyl Smit&N-M Isakow,“Assessors and Criminal Justice”,in 1 South African Journal of Human Rights,1985,pp.218-235.
(164)D.Van Zyl Smit&N-M Isakow,“Assessors and Criminal Justice”,in 1 South African Journal of Human Rights,1985,pp.218-235.
(165)See,e.g.s35 of the General Law Law Amendment Act 1935 and further legislation in 1952—1963.
(166)E.Kahn(1991/3),“Restore the jury?Or reform?Reform?Aren’t things bad enough already?”,In South African Law Journal,p.103.
(167)See Richard Vogler,“The international development of the jury:The role of the British Empire”,in Le jury dans le procès pénal au XXIe siècle,Conférence internationale,Syracuse, Italie,2629 mai 1999,Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal(RIDP),1eet 2etrimestres 2001, pp.550-551.
(168)See R.Knoxmawer,“Juries and assessors in criminal trials in some Commonwealth countries:A preliminary survey”,International and Comparative Law Quarterly,1961,pp.892-898.
(169)See Carbasse J.-M.,Introduction historique au droit pénal,1èreéd.,Paris,PUF,Collection Droit Fondamental,2000;Esmein A.,Histoire de la procédure criminelle en France,Paris,Larose et Forcel,1882;Laingui A.et Lebrigre A.,Histoire du droit pénal,Tome II,Paris, Cujas,1979;Royer J.-P.,Histoire de la justice en France,3èmeéd.,Paris,PUF,Collection Droit fondamental 2001.
(170)Bonno G.,La Constitution britannique devant l’opinion française de MontesquieuàBonaparte,Thèse,Paris,1931,p.4.
(171)Montesquieu C.,De l’esprit des lois,Liv.XI,Chap.IV.
(172)Des délits et des peines,traduit par Maurice chevalier,Paris,Flammarion,1997, p.92.
(173)William Roumier,L’avenir du jury criminel,LGDJ,2003,p.1 et s.
(174)Jean Pradel,Le jury en France:une histoire jamais terminée,in Le jury dans le procès pénal au XXIe siècle,Conférence internationale,Syracuse,Italie,2629 mai 1999,Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal(RIDP),1eet 2etrimestres 2001,p.175 et s.
(175)Bernard Schnapper,Le jury français aux XIX et XXème siècles,in The trial jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker& Humblot,Berlin,1987,p.165.
(176)参照前文第一章第一节“陪审制在英国的产生及基本雏形”。
(177)Bernard Schnapper,Le jury criminel,in Une Autre Justice 1789—1795,Fayard,1989, p.150.
(178)Bernard Schnapper,Le jury criminel,in Une Autre Justice 1789—1795,Fayard,1989, p.151 et s.
(179)该法典从第282条至第646条对控诉陪审团、重罪法院以及判决陪审团等作了十分详尽的规定。
(180)《犯罪与刑罚法典》,第483条。
(181)共和历三年果月5日宪法,第35条。
(182)参见Faustin Hélie,Du jury et de sa composition,Revue Wolowski,1842,323页;同样参见A.Esmein,Histoire de la procédure criminelle en France,1882,reprod.Anastatique 1969,pp.439-450。合乎这一条件的公民比例大概为1791年法律的1/2。
(183)例如,参见William Savitt,Villainous Verdicts?Rethinking the Nineteenth-Century French Jury,in Columbia Law Review,Vol.96,No.4(May,1996),pp.1019-1061。
(184)例如,参见易延友:《陪审团移植的成败及其启示——以法国为考察重心》,载《比较法研究》,2005(1),87~100页。许多学术大家如朱苏力、贺卫方等也有类似观点。
(185)参见易延友:《陪审团移植的成败及其启示——以法国为考察重心》,载《比较法研究》, 2005(1)。
(186)RenéDemogue,La justice criminelle dans la Marne de 1790à1830,1913,p.83(Extr.de la Revue de Champagne).
(187)Mémoire de Gach(an X),de Mezard 1820.Les mémoires publiés au moment de la préparation du C.I.C.seront analysés par Ch.Clauss,Le jury sous le Consulat et le Premier Empire,Thése Droit 1905,pp.54-68;P.J.Tempier,Etude sur le jury 1846,p.47.Tempier叹言,“我们过于宽容:立法者只关心被指控者,而忽视了犯罪与被害人”。
(188)参见第一章第一节及第二节。
(189)共和历六年雪月29日的法律已经设有类似规定,对可判处死刑的抢劫犯罪可提交至战争委员会,Esmein,p.467。
(190)Tempier,Etude sur le jury,1846,p.56:J.Cruppi,Napoléon et le jury,discours de rentréeàla Cour de cassation,1896,et surtout Esmein,pp.470-480.
(191)Décret du 2ème jour complémentaire de l’an III(II septembre 1795)Duvergier,VIII, p.279;Loi du 13 brumaire an V(3 novembre 1796),Duvergier IX,p.214.
(192)Bernard Schnapper,Le jury français aux XIX et XXème siècles,in The trial jury in England, France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker&Humblot,Berlin,1987,p.174.但拿破仑并不要求废除陪审制,而是主张强化行政机关对陪审团的控制。Séance du 16 prairial an XII(5 juin 1804),LocréXXIV,p.46,citépar Esmein,Esmein A.,Histoire de la procédure criminelle en France,Paris,Larose et Forcel,1882,pp.508-511.
(193)甚至有人主张完全撤销陪审制,重新启用1670年的诉讼程序,并加强程序的公开性及对被告人的协助。但以Berlier为首的陪审制支持者坚持认为,陪审制是避免法定证据制度及独裁统治的唯一方式,绝不能废除。Berlier共和历十二年牧月16日在国家参事院里说道,“这就是陪审制:其所主张的自由心证凌驾于法定证据之上,而刑事陪审团制度同样凌驾于所有排斥它的制度之上”。Berlier1808年1月30日在国家参事院里更是强调,“依良心裁判事实的权力仅属于陪审员”。参见Locré,T.XXIV,p.27 et p.50。两派最终达成妥协。因此,陪审制虽未被《重罪法典》完全废除(只废除了控诉陪审团),但陪审制的蜕化却是一个不争的事实。
(195)共和历九年雨月7日的法律,citépar Esmein,ESMEIN A.,Histoire de la procédure criminelle en France,Paris,Larose et Forcel,1882,pp.459-461。
(196)Bernard Schnapper,Le jury criminel,in Une Autre Justice 1789—1795,Fayard, 1989,p.164.
(197)Bernard Schnapper,Le jury criminel,in Une Autre Justice 1789—1795,Fayard, 1989,p.164.
(198)Vidalenc,Quelques aspects de la criminalitéet de la délinquance dans la Seine Inférieureàla fin du 1er Empire,Rev.d’Hist.économique et sociale,1967,pp.289-305.
(199)Françoise Lombard,Les jurés:justice representative et representations de la justice, L’Harmattan,1992,p.78.
(200)Mézard,Du principe conservateur,1820,pp.229-230.
(201)诚如学者所言,这种解读“极其荒诞”且“不合逻辑”,详见J.Dabin,Le pouvoir d’appréciation du jury,Bruxelles,1913,pp.105-157。
(202)Bernard Schnapper,Le jury français aux XIX et XXème siècles,in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker& Humblot,Berlin,1987,p.177.
(203)Mezard,Du principe conservateur,1820,pp.148,100,103,106 et 111.
(204)Demogue,La justice criminelle dans la Marne de 1790à1830,1913,p.75.
(205)Carnot,Le code d’instruction criminelle et le Code pénal mis en harmonie avec la Charte, 1819;Le Graverend,Observations sur le jury;Berenger,De la justice criminelle en France 1818; de Remusat,De la procédure par jurés en matière criminelle,1820.
(206)Carnot,Le code d’instruction criminelle et le Code pénal mis en harmonie avec la Charte,1819;Le Graverend,Observations sur le jury;Berenger,De la justice criminelle en France 1818;de Remusat,De la procédure par jurés en matière criminelle,1820.
(207)Carnot,Le code d’instruction criminelle et le Code pénal mis en harmonie avec la Charte,1819;Le Graverend,Observations sur le jury;Berenger,De la justice criminelle en France 1818;de Remusat,De la procédure par jurés en matière criminelle,1820.
(208)Bérenger,De la justice criminelle en France 1818,p.179.
(209)Carnot,Le code d’instruction criminelle et le Code pénal mis en harmonie avec la Charte, 1819,p.31.
(210)参见1820年6月12日的选举法。
(211)这些公务员主要包括大区议会议员、地方议会议员及大市议会议员。
(212)1832年4月28日的法律第5条。
(213)从1840年起,重罪法院高达68%的有罪判决都承认存在减刑情节。
(214)Bernard Schnapper,Le jury français aux XIX et XXème siècles,in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker& Humblot,Berlin,1987,p.188.
(215)William Roumier,L’avenir du jury criminel,LGDJ,2003,p.25 et s.
(216)Bernard Schnapper,Le jury français aux XIX et XXème siècles,in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker& Humblot,Berlin,1987,p.187.
(217)Cl.Chatelard,Crimes et criminalitédans l’arrondissement de Saint-Etienne au XIXème siècle,1981,p.219.
(218)Demogue,La justice criminelle dans la Marne de 1790à1830,1913,p.75.
(219)Tempier,Etudes sur le jury,1846,pp.64-65.
(220)所有21周岁以上的法国公民均享有选举权和被选举权,而无任何财产或身份的限制。
(221)Girard,Prost et Gossez,Les conseillers généraux en 1870,1967.
(222)Bernard Schnapper,Le jury français aux XIX et XXème siècles,in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker& Humblot,Berlin,1987,pp.193-194.
(223)Alexis de Tocqueville,De la démocratie en Amérique,vol.I,inŒuvres,Paris,Garnier-Flammarion,1981,pp.311-317.
(224)早在1791年的制宪会议上,便有议员主张在轻罪案件中引入陪审团审判,但未获通过。
(225)1848年8月7日的法律是法兰西第二共和国少数得以实施的法律。虽然有个别省份因准备工作不足依然适用旧的陪审员名单,但大部分的省在1848年第四个季审中便适用了新名单。参见Dépouillement de la correspondance contenue dans A.N.BB181467B。
(226)Constatation du conseil général du Doubs,séance du 28 novembre 1848.
(227)Orne,31 décembre 1848,A.N.BB181467B.
(228)Bernard Schnapper,Le jury français aux XIX et XXème siècles,in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker& Humblot,Berlin,1987,pp.204-205.
(229)参见朗格卢瓦(Langlois)于1853年5月4日在立法机构所作的报告。
(230)虽然立法机构抵制这一做法,但无济于事。参见Bernard Schnapper,Le jury français aux XIX et XXème siècles,in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker&Humblot,Berlin,1987,pp.205-206。
(231)众所周知,陪审团对政治犯一般更为宽容。在大革命时期,政治犯的无罪释放率高达七成。
(232)Lois annotées,1851,p.187,suivies par un décret du 30 avril(Lois annotées 1852,p.130).
(233)Bernard Schnapper,Le jury français aux XIX et XXème siècles,in The Trial Jury in England,France,Germany 1700—1900,edited by Prof.Dr.Antonio Padoa Schioppa,Duncker& Humblot,Berlin,1987,p.205.
(234)即1863年5月13日关于修改刑法典的法律及5月20日关于现行犯轻罪的法律,Lois annotées,pp.4148,68-72。
(235)Revue pénitentiaire,1907,p.1218.
(236)事实上也达到了这一目的。从1853年至1862年,针对人身或国家之犯罪的无罪释放率下降至27.7%,针对财产之犯罪的无罪释放率下降至23.6%,在政治犯罪中,无罪释放率下降至34.9%,而在有伤风化罪案件中,无罪释放率下降至22.5%。
(237)1848年至1880年每年平均的被告人数量为:1848—1852年7 140人,1853—1862年5 637人,1863—1869年4 403人;而案件数量的统计数字为:1856—1860年平均每年为4 155起,1861—1880年平均每年为3 598起。
(238)M.Charnay,Revue Socialiste,T.16,1892,pp.308-310。Charnay痛斥道,“这是一个教权式议会的作品,虚伪而反动,该法与帝国时期的法律一样糟糕”。
(239)Jean Pradel,Le jury en France:une histoire jamais terminée,in Le jury dans le procès pénal au XXIe siècle,Conférence internationale,Syracuse,Italie,26-29 mai 1999,Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal(RIDP),1eet 2etrimestres 2001,p.176.
(240)事实上,很少有学者认真思考“陪审制在法国是否移植失败”这一问题。大部分学者都将这一观点作为预设,而其潜在的推理模式便是:“参审制取代陪审制”→“陪审制在法国移植失败”。
(241)Cruppi précité;C.Guyho,ancien députédu Finistère et avocat généralàla Cour de Paris, Les jurés maïtres de la peine,Paris,1908.
(242)1ère section,4°question;Voir T.1,procès verbaux,pp.88108 et T.2,Rapports, pp.331-477.
(243)Maxwell,La crise du jury,in Archives d'anthropologie criminelle,1941,pp.241-261.
(244)Jean Pradel,Le jury en France:une histoire jamais terminée,in Le jury dans le procès pénal au XXIe siècle,Conférence internationale,Syracuse,Italie,2629 mai 1999,Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal(RIDP),1eet 2etrimestres 2001,p.176.
(245)Jean Pradel,Le jury en France:une histoire jamais terminée,in Le jury dans le procès pénal au XXIe siècle,Conférence internationale,Syracuse,Italie,2629 mai 1999,Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal(RIDP),1eet 2etrimestres 2001,p.176.
(246)Michel Bonnieu,The presumption of innocence and the cour d'assises:Is France ready for adversarial procedure.In Le jury dans le procès pénal au XXIe siècle,Conférence internationale, Syracuse,Italie,2629 mai 1999,Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal(RIDP),1eet 2etrimestres 2001,pp.574-576.
(247)Le jury dans le procès pénal au XXIe siècle,Conférence internationale,Syracuse,Italie, 2629 mai 1999,Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal(RIDP),1eet 2etrimestres 2001.
(248)Le jury dans le procès pénal au XXIe siècle,Conférence internationale,Syracuse,Italie, 26-29 mai 1999,Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal(RIDP),1eet 2etrimestres 2001,p.1.
(249)See Stephen C.Thaman,“Europe’s new jury systems:The cases of Spain and Russia”, in Law and Contemporary Problems,1999,p.233.
(250)详见本书第四章第一节。
免责声明：以上内容源自网络，版权归原作者所有，如有侵犯您的原创版权请告知，我们将尽快删除相关内容。
