33 asked in 社會與文化語言 · 1 decade ago

幫我英翻中,感謝(不要翻譯軟體的)

This means that a juror must believe that the accused is guilty, and the juror must not reasonably doubt this belief. If the juror reasonably and honestly doubts guilt, based upon the evidence that has been presented, he or she must not reach a verdict of guilty.

This does not mean that the law requires the State to prove that a defendant is guilty beyond all possible doubt. The law recognizes that, in dealing with human affairs, there are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty. So, the law does not require a complete absence of doubt in order to reach a verdict of guilty.

In determining whether or not the State has proven the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, jury members should be guided only by a full and fair evaluation of the evidence. Jurors should not be influenced by their own personal bias or sympathy.

Today, the presumption of innocence is an internationally recognized hallmark of a country with a just legal system. It is also an important part of universal human rights law and is laid down in Article of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Societies whose legal systems rests on the presumption of innocence have determined that it is better to allow a guilty person to go free than to imprison an innocent person.

Today, most of the world’s countries base their legal system on the presumption of innocence. So common is this basis that we may begin to take it for granted. To keep a perspective on the implications of systems that assume innocence, take a moment to consider the consequences of assuming guilt. Many countries, especially during times of stress or hysteria, have leaned towards a judgment of guilt without due process. In such cases, early American women were convicted of being witches. More recently, some human rights advocates say that Middle Easterners in the US have been unjustly deported based solely on an accusation and presumption of guilt.

2 Answers

Rating
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    這意味著,一個陪審員必須相信,認為被告人有罪,陪審員不能產生合理懷疑,這樣的信念。如果陪審員的合理和誠實懷疑有罪,根據出示的證據已經提交,他或她必須沒有達成有罪的判決。

    這並不意味著,該法要求國家必須證明被告有罪超越一切可能的疑點。法律承認,在處理人類事務中,有極少數的東西,在這個世界上,我們要知道絕對肯定。因此,法律並沒有規定完全沒有疑問,以達到有罪的判決。

    在決定是否或不是國家已證明被告有罪超越合理懷疑陪審團成員應遵循只有全面和公正的評價證據。陪審員不應該影響自己的個人偏見或同情。

    今天,推定為無罪的,是國際公認的標誌是一個國家與一個公正的法律制度。這也是一個重要組成部分,普遍人權的法律規定,並訂下的條款列入聯合國世界人權宣言。社會,其法律制度,就必須推定為無罪的,決定了它是更好,讓有罪的人去自由比下獄一個無辜的人。

    今天,世界上大多數國家的基礎,其法律制度對推定無罪的。那麼常見的是在這個基礎上我們可以開始考慮這是理所當然的。保持視角的影響,制度假設無罪的,藉此機會考慮後果承擔罪責。許多國家,特別是在時代的壓力或歇斯底里的,有傾向於一項判決有罪,未經正當程序。在這種情況下,美國早期婦女被定罪被魔鬼附身。最近,一些人權倡導者說,中東人,在美國已被不公正地驅逐完全基於指控,並推定有罪

    Source(s): me
  • 魷魚
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    這意味著陪審員必須相信被指責的是有罪的,并且陪審員不能合理地懷疑這信仰。 如果合理陪審員和誠實地根據提出了的證據懷疑罪狀,他或她不能決定判決有罪。

    這不意味著法律要求狀態證明,被告在所有可能的疑義之外是有罪的。 法律認為,與人的事理打交道,有非常少量事在我們绝對肯定知道的這個世界。 因此,法律不要求完全缺乏疑義為了決定判決有罪。

    在確定狀態是否證明了被告的罪狀在合理質疑之外,陪審團成員應該由證據的一個充分和公平的評估仅引導。 陪審員不應該被他們自己的個人偏心或同情影響。

    今天,無罪推定是一個國家的一個國際公認的標記與正義法制系統。 它也是普遍人權法律的一個重要部分和放下在聯合國在人權問題上的世界聲明的文章上。 法制系統基於無罪推定的社會確定允許一個有罪人獲得自由比監禁一個無辜的人最好的。

    今天,大多世界的國家根據他們的法制系統無罪推定。 因此共同性是我們也許開始視為當然的這個依據。 要保留對假設無罪系統的涵義的透視,花些時間考慮傲慢的罪狀的後果。 特別是在重音或歇斯底里的時期許多國家,傾斜了往罪狀的評斷,不用正當手續。 在這類情況下,早期的美國婦女被判了罪是巫婆。 最近,一些人權提倡者說中間東部人在美國不公道地被遞解了根據罪狀的指責和推測單獨地。

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.