外文翻譯--司法構(gòu)造超越民事訴訟

1、<p><b>　　外文翻譯</b></p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　Constructs of Justice: Beyond Civil Litigation Of：Alan J. Tomkins and Kimberly Applequist</p><p>　　Promin

2、ent justice theories, that is, distributive, procedural, restorative, and retributive justice.Briefly, distributive justice is concerned primarily with the perceived fairness of the outcome of a given proceeding, whether

3、 that proceeding is judicial, quasi judicial or entirely non-judicial in nature. Procedural justice, in contrast, is concerned with whether the procedures used in a given process are considered fair by the participants,

4、and is similarly not restricted to judicial settings. </p><p>　　Justice constructs as well as the numbers, their boundaries, etc. For purposes of this rely on the constructs of justice used by Tom Tyler, by

5、far the most prolific and important of modern justice scholars, and his colleagues in their book, Social Justice in a Diverse Society.</p><p>　　Constructs of Justice: Beyond Civil Litigation 259 distribution

6、 of resources among competing parties, while a need-based allocation might result in a previously disadvantaged party receiving a larger share of the resources, and an efficiency-based allocation might call for distribut

7、ing a larger share to those parties that produce the most. In a given situation, then, how might one decide which principle(s) should be applied to make an appropriate allocation determination? There is, perhaps not s<

8、;/p><p>　　Given the principles that appear to be at work in the distributive justice construct, then, it is not difficult to see how research in this area could tell us much not only about civil justice in cour

9、troom settings, but also about legislative decisions that regulate courtroom outcomes or allocate resources directly. Distributive justice principles would be particularly valuable to examine public satisfaction with adm

10、inistrative agency decision-making, which regulates so much activity in American</p><p>　　Procedural Justice Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, distributive justice principles are often less important to disputa

11、nts than other factors when individuals are asked to evaluate their overall satisfaction with the resolution of some dispute or resource allocation. In many instances, procedural justice principles carry greater weight t

12、han distributive outcome measures like equity or equality in determining the overall level of satisfaction for parties to a dispute. In other words, individuals wh</p><p>　　Procedural justice, as the name im

13、plies, focuses on whether the procedures used to make an allocation determination are fair, without regard to the actual outcome. Tyler identifies four key factors that individuals weigh when determining whether a procee

14、ding is procedurally fair: fairness and neutrality of the decision maker; opportunity to present one’s side of the dispute; trustworthiness of the decision maker; and respectful treatment of all parties during the course

15、 of the proceedings.</p><p>　　Perhaps least surprising among the four components of procedural justice is the requirement that the decision maker be perceived as neutral. Although it might seem reasonable th

16、at one would prefer to have a dispute heard by a judge known to be biased in favor of the claimant’s position,2 it is also the case that no one would want to have a matter resolved by a decisionmaker known to be biased a

17、gainst the claimant. Thus, it is important that the decisionmaker be perceived as neutral by all partie</p><p>　　As important as the neutrality of the decisionmaker is the opportunity to present one’s side o

18、f the dispute in front of that neutral decisionmaker.</p><p>　　Research indicates that the opportunity to voice one’s position is critical to the overall perception of procedural justice. Indeed, there are r

19、eports of instances where even though a party has received everything sought in a dispute, he or she nevertheless reports frustration with the proceedings due to the denial of the opportunity to fully tell his or her sto

20、ry. Tyler reports defendants’ dissatisfaction with a traffic court judge who routinely dismissed the tickets of those who appeared in co</p><p>　　Related but not identical to the neutrality of the decisionma

21、ker is his, her, or their trustworthiness. A biased decisionmaker by definition will not be deemed trustworthy by all parties to a dispute, but neutrality does not guarantee</p><p>　　Indeed, this common sent

22、iment is the inspiration behind a t-shirt that is popular among litigators, which reads, ‘A good lawyer knows the law; a great lawyer knows the judge.’</p><p>　　Constructs of Justice: Beyond Civil Litigation

23、 261 trustworthiness. Rather, the decisionmaker must be an individual or group whom the parties believe will apply any relevant laws, rules, or other decisionmaking principles in an appropriate and consistent manner to o

24、versee the proceedings and arrive at his, her, or their decision(s). Trustworthiness also has implications for legitimacy in governmental actions.</p><p>　　As part of their in-depth analysis of a restorative

25、 justice dialogue that arose from the robbing of an Israeli woman by two Palestinian boys, Umbreit and Ritter articulate six elements to a restorative justice dialogue. First, everyone who was directly affected by the cr

26、ime should be encouraged to participate in the dialogue. Second, the victim and the offender should be able to choose family members and or support persons to be present, if they desire.</p><p>　　Constructs

27、of Justice: Beyond Civil Litigation 263</p><p>　　Third, critically, participation in the dialogue must be voluntary by all parties.Fourth, the process of the dialogue should be adapted to the needs of both t

28、he victim and the offender. Fifth, extra deference should be shown to the victim, but the offender should still be treated with respect. And sixth, all of the primary parties to the dialogue should be prepared in advance

29、 through in-person meetings with some mediator facilitator prior to the dialogue.</p><p>　　While the concept of restorative justice is relatively new to American courts,similar principles can be found in man

30、y traditional or historical societies.</p><p>　　Gray-Kanatiiosh and Lauderdale discuss the use of restorative principles in Native American societies as a way of maintaining balance within the society.They a

31、rgue that, rather than exerting control through‘stricter laws, more law enforcement officers, and increased funding’as a way to decrease crime in</p><p>　　Native American communities, the money would be bett

32、er spent restoringa multidimensional web of justiceby identifying, understanding and, where possible, re-creating traditional cultural social practices and structures to maintain social balance, diversity, and harmony wi

33、thin their societies.</p><p>　　The web of justice they describe includes preventative as well as restorative mechanisms that together function to maintain justice, at least justice as fairness.</p>&l

34、t;p>　　More recent research in the area of restorative justice has expanded from the criminal law context to applying the principles of restorative justice in other areas. One such area is that of civil litigation. Civ

35、il litigation, and more particularly tort litigation, is generally intended to redress some injury that results from the intentional or negligent acts or omissions of another. Such cases can range from the deliberate inj

36、ury of one person by another, to medical malpractice, to the notoriou</p><p>　　Greene’s chapter in this volume is an example of the application of restorative justice in the civil justice arena. As Greene po

37、ints out, the civil litigation experience can be very unpleasant for all the participants, and can ultimately leave even successful litigants feeling unsatisfied. This lack of satisfaction may stem from a number of facto

38、rs, including the length of time required for the process, its costs – which include time away from work or loved ones and emotional toll in addition to</p><p>　　Greene explores the therapeutic and especiall

39、y the counter therapeutic effects of litigation. Drawing on procedural justice theory, she argues both plaintiffs and defendants in tort litigation may gain some measure of satisfaction from being able to voice their sid

40、e of the story and from being treated fairly 264 A. J.Tomkins, K. Applequist and respectfully. On the other hand, the lengthy and often acrimonious process of litigation, which may stretch out for a considerable period o

41、f time and usua</p><p><b>　　翻譯：</b></p><p>　　司法構(gòu)造：超越民事訴訟</p><p>　　作者：Alan J. Tomkins /Kimberly Applequist</p><p>　　突出的正義理論，即，分配，程序，恢復(fù)性和報(bào)復(fù)性的正義。簡(jiǎn)單地說(shuō)，分配正義主要關(guān)注的

42、一個(gè)給定程序的結(jié)果是否公平，是否該訴訟是司法，準(zhǔn)司法或完全非司法性質(zhì)。程序公正，相反，是關(guān)于是否在給定的過(guò)程中使用的程序，被認(rèn)為是由參與者公平，也同樣是不局限于司法設(shè)置。對(duì)恢復(fù)性司法而言，顧名思義，與受害方恢復(fù)到他或她受傷前的狀態(tài)，并幫助加害者承認(rèn)并糾正他或她的行為傷害的性質(zhì)。最后，懲罰性司法著眼于應(yīng)對(duì)已造成心理傷害。最近的研究表明，懲罰性和恢復(fù)性司法原則，與程序正義的分配和背景，在司法以外的范圍內(nèi)適用。</p><

43、p>　　構(gòu)建司法：羅爾斯認(rèn)為，自己的原則適用于一些有序的層次分類(lèi)，但其他人認(rèn)為，人們使用大部分或所有原則，在一定程度上可能依給定的情況而定。在分配正義方面的研究還表明，不同的人口群體的人可能存在這差異。性別，種族，文化背景等都會(huì)給予優(yōu)先考并影響分配。那么，我們不難看到，在本領(lǐng)域的研究可以告訴我們很多關(guān)于在法庭上設(shè)置民事司法規(guī)定，立法決策，規(guī)范法庭的秩序或直接分配資源規(guī)定。公平分配的原則將是特別有價(jià)值的檢查法院與行政機(jī)關(guān)的決策，其中

44、規(guī)定了這么多的社會(huì)活動(dòng)，美國(guó)社會(huì)中的管理機(jī)構(gòu)決策特別是對(duì)分配或資源分配的決策決定市民滿(mǎn)意。</p><p>　　也許有些人驚訝于程序正義，分配正義的原則往往比其他同樣重要的因素更有爭(zhēng)議，當(dāng)一個(gè)人被要求評(píng)價(jià)與一些糾紛或他們的整體資源分配的決議的滿(mǎn)意時(shí)。在許多情況下，程序公正的原則往往被忽略，大多數(shù)人認(rèn)為爭(zhēng)端各方的對(duì)結(jié)果的滿(mǎn)意度是評(píng)價(jià)平等的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。換句話說(shuō)，個(gè)人在解決糾紛的過(guò)程中，往往更愿意接受的結(jié)果是那么平等或公平客

45、觀，并不看重程序的公正。但在早期法律教授勞倫斯沃克認(rèn)為現(xiàn)在進(jìn)入程序正義，程序正義觀念的作用已經(jīng)并將繼續(xù)成為研究人員的主要焦點(diǎn)。事實(shí)上，研究程序正義以成為研究人員的研究重點(diǎn)。</p><p>　　歐塞爾湯姆金斯，研究得出一個(gè)程序正義感通常比一個(gè)分配正義感重要的結(jié)果，并分配正義很大程度上決定分配是否有可能被各方接受的重點(diǎn)。</p><p>　　程序正義，顧名思義，不僅限于在訴訟程序中實(shí)現(xiàn)正義，

46、更重要的是凡是涉及程序的方面都要求實(shí)現(xiàn)程序正義，泰勒明確了四個(gè)關(guān)鍵因素，決定是否提起訴訟在程序上公平，決策者地位中立地位，各方相同的待遇，機(jī)會(huì)展示機(jī)會(huì)相同。在程序正義的四個(gè)組成部分中也許令人驚訝的是決策者作為中立的要求。雖然它可能似乎是合理的，法官審理的爭(zhēng)端是站在在索賠人的位置將有可能產(chǎn)生偏袒，沒(méi)有人會(huì)希望由一個(gè)對(duì)該申索人有偏見(jiàn)的決策者來(lái)解決了申索人與他人的爭(zhēng)議。因此，重要的是，決策者在所有爭(zhēng)端各方中應(yīng)是保持中立的，以防止由于決策者的偏

47、見(jiàn)使任何一方感到不正義。</p><p>　　作為中立的決策者重要的是讓爭(zhēng)端雙方都有機(jī)會(huì)在決策者面前表達(dá)觀點(diǎn)。研究表明，有機(jī)會(huì)表達(dá)自己的立場(chǎng)是至關(guān)重要的程序正義的總體感覺(jué)。事實(shí)上，有許多情況下，即使當(dāng)事人已收到申請(qǐng)解決爭(zhēng)端的報(bào)告，但由于他或她的訴訟報(bào)告可能被拒絕，使充分告訴他或她的爭(zhēng)議搜到阻礙。泰勒?qǐng)?bào)告，法官推斷如果被告曾花時(shí)間來(lái)打擊這件事的法院工作，他們可能被控受到足夠懲罰。雖然結(jié)果顯然青睞那些有爭(zhēng)議的交通票，

48、被告經(jīng)常報(bào)告他們感到沮喪的結(jié)果，因?yàn)樗麄兾传@陳述其之前在裁決的機(jī)會(huì)。他們中許多人去了一些方法來(lái)準(zhǔn)備他們的案件，采取現(xiàn)場(chǎng)或安排證人圖片，只有把所有費(fèi)用下降，才可以告訴他們的故事。盡管積極的分配結(jié)果，他們不安的是，他們的聲音是聽(tīng)不到的事實(shí)。</p><p>　　相關(guān)但不完全相同的中立的決策者是他的，她，或者他們的可信度。按定義偏見(jiàn)決策者將不被視為值得信賴(lài)的各方爭(zhēng)議，但并不保證中立。事實(shí)上，這種共同的情感背后的靈感是深

49、受訴訟適用的。一個(gè)好的律師都知道的法律，一個(gè)偉大的律師知道法官。</p><p>　　構(gòu)建司法：超越民事訴訟261可信度。相反，決策者必須為個(gè)人或團(tuán)體的人相信各方將適用于以適當(dāng)?shù)暮鸵恢碌姆绞?，監(jiān)督程序和適用他，她，或者他們的決定任何有關(guān)的法律，法規(guī)或其他決策的原則。誠(chéng)信也為政府行動(dòng)的合法性問(wèn)題。 正如他們?cè)谏钊牖謴?fù)性司法的對(duì)話，里特闡明六要素恢復(fù)性司法的對(duì)話。首先，每個(gè)直接受影響的犯罪嫌疑人，應(yīng)鼓勵(lì)參加對(duì)話。二

50、，受害人和罪犯嫌疑人應(yīng)該能夠選擇家庭成員或支持的人到場(chǎng)，如果他們的愿望。第三，關(guān)鍵的是，所有各方在對(duì)話中的參與必須是自愿的。第四，對(duì)話過(guò)程中應(yīng)適應(yīng)受害者和罪犯的需要。第五，應(yīng)顯示額外的尊重受害者，但罪犯嫌疑人仍然應(yīng)該受到尊重。第六，向?qū)υ挼闹饕?dāng)事方在對(duì)話會(huì)議之前都應(yīng)該事先通過(guò)與一些中介準(zhǔn)備。</p><p>　　盡管恢復(fù)性司法的概念在美國(guó)法院是比較新的，但類(lèi)似的原則，可以發(fā)現(xiàn)在許多傳統(tǒng)或歷史學(xué)會(huì)。勞德代爾討論在

51、美國(guó)本土社會(huì)的恢復(fù)性原則，是維護(hù)社會(huì)平衡的方式。他們爭(zhēng)辯說(shuō)，應(yīng)加強(qiáng)教育而不是通過(guò)施加更嚴(yán)格的法律，提高執(zhí)法人員水平，并增加撥款，以此來(lái)減少犯罪。</p><p>　　美洲土著社區(qū)，應(yīng)了解識(shí)別多維的正義網(wǎng)，并在可能情況下重新建立傳統(tǒng)文化的社會(huì)習(xí)俗和結(jié)構(gòu)，以維持社會(huì)平衡，多樣性，社會(huì)和諧。在追求公正中包括預(yù)防以及恢復(fù)功能，維護(hù)正義的機(jī)制。</p><p>　　較近期的恢復(fù)性司法領(lǐng)域的研究已經(jīng)從

52、刑事法中以運(yùn)用在其他領(lǐng)域的恢復(fù)性司法的原則。這樣的一個(gè)領(lǐng)域是民事訴訟。民事訴訟，更尤其是侵權(quán)訴訟，一般是為了糾正一些傷害，從故意或過(guò)失行為或其他不作為的結(jié)果。這些案件的范圍可以從一個(gè)人的另一故意傷害，醫(yī)療事故，以臭名昭著的墜落情況。同樣，在違反合同的訴訟，當(dāng)事人一般說(shuō)，它已受傷，由于對(duì)方未能履行合同的條款，賦予受害一方損害賠償或其他救濟(jì)。在這兩種類(lèi)型的訴訟中，受害方起訴，以便賠償他或她的損失。然而，是民事的訴訟過(guò)程，其貨幣判決，是對(duì)損失

53、的最佳補(bǔ)償？格林在本卷第二章是對(duì)恢復(fù)性司法在民事司法領(lǐng)域的應(yīng)用實(shí)例。正如格林指出，民間訴訟的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，所有的參與者可能非常不愉快，甚至給當(dāng)事人的感覺(jué)不滿(mǎn)意。這種滿(mǎn)意度不足，可能源于許多因素，包括時(shí)間長(zhǎng)度工藝要求，其成本包括時(shí)間、工作、親人和律師費(fèi)和訴訟費(fèi)收費(fèi)的情感，以及其他各種挫折。</p><p>　　關(guān)于程序正義理論，她認(rèn)為侵權(quán)訴訟中原告和被告能夠表達(dá)他們的心聲。另一方面，訴訟過(guò)程冗長(zhǎng)，常常激烈，這可能伸出了一段