法律翻译 | 《耶鲁法律评论》第123卷第1期目录+摘要

ABSTRACT. This Article presents new empirical evidence concerning the effects of United States v. Booker, which loosened the formerly mandatory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, on racial disparities in federal criminal cases. Two serious limitations pervade existing empirical literature on sentencing disparities. First, studies focus on sentencing in isolation, controlling for the “presumptive sentence” or similar measures that themselves result from discretionary charging, plea-bargaining, and fact-finding processes. Any disparities in these earlier processes are excluded from the resulting sentence-disparity estimates. Our research has shown that this exclusion matters: pre-sentencing decision-making can have substantial sentence-disparity consequences. Second, existing studies have used loose causal inference methods that fail to disentangle the effects of sentencing-law changes, such as Booker, from surrounding events and trends. 

摘要：本文提出了关于合众国诉布克案——该案取消了美国量刑指南的强制性约束力——对联邦刑事案件之量刑的种族差异所造成影响的新的实证证据。（关于量刑差异问题的）现有实证研究普遍存在两方面的严重局限性。首先，现有研究仅关注孤立的（法官）量刑过程，而将（检察官的）“量刑建议”或类似措施作为控制变量。这些措施是（检察官们）行使自由裁量权、进行辩诉交易、进行事实查明和认定的结果。（由于被作为控制变量，）这些早期过程中的一切差别对待，在最终评估时，都被排除在了影响量刑差异的因素的考量范围之外。我们的研究显示这种排除至关重要：量刑前程序中的（不同）决策可能会导致在量刑结果上的实质性差异。其次，现有研究采用了不精确的因果分析法，未能将量刑规则变化（如布克案）带来的影响从其关联的社会事件和社会趋势中区分开来。

In contrast, we use a dataset that traces cases from arrest to sentencing, allowing us to assess Booker’s effects on disparities in charging, plea-bargaining, and fact-finding, as well as sentencing. We disentangle background trends by using a rigorous regression discontinuity-style design. Contrary to other studies (and in particular, the dramatic recent claims of the U.S. Sentencing Commission), we find no evidence that racial disparity has increased since Booker, much less because of Booker. Unexplained racial disparity remains persistent, but does not appear to have increased following the expansion of judicial discretion.

相比之下，我们所使用的数据集覆盖了案件从逮捕到量刑的全过程，这使我们能够评估在起诉指控、辩诉交易、事实查明、定罪量刑的各阶段中，布克案给量刑差异带来的影响。我们（还）运用严格的断点回归设计[1]剔除了社会背景因素的影响。与其他研究（尤其是美国量刑委员会近期得出的戏剧性结论）相反，我们并没有发现任何证据表明（量刑结果中的）种族差异在布克案之后有所扩大，更不必说由布克案直接导致的（扩大）。无法解释的种族差异现象确实持续存在，但它们似乎并没有因司法裁量权的扩张而有所增加。

ABSTRACT. Second Amendment doctrine is largely becoming a line-drawing exercise, as courts try to determine which “Arms” are constitutionally protected, which “people” are permitted to keep and bear them, and in which ways those arms and people can be regulated. But the developing legal regime has yet to account for one potentially significant set of lines: the city limits themselves. In rural areas, gun crime and gun control are relatively rare, and gun culture is strong. In cities, by contrast, rates of violent gun crime are comparatively high, and opportunities for recreational gun use are scarce. And from colonial Boston to nineteenth-century Tombstone to contemporary New York City, guns have consistently been regulated more heavily in cities—a degree of geographic variation that is hard to find with regard to any other constitutional right. This Article argues that Second Amendment doctrine and state preemption laws can and should incorporate these longstanding and sensible differences between urban and rural gun use and regulation. Doing so would present new possibilities for the stalled debate on gun control, protect rural gun culture while permitting cities to address urban gun violence, and preserve the longstanding American tradition of firearm localism. 

摘要：第二修正案[2]理论（体系的建立）很大程度上成为了一个划定界限的工作，在此过程中，法院尝试确定哪些“武器”是受到宪法保护的，哪些“人民”被允许持有和携带它们，以及（政府）可以对这些武器和人民施加哪些监管措施。但是这项不断发展的法律制度一直没有将这一组界限纳入考量，而该组界限可能非常重要：即城市的权力界限本身。在农村地区，枪支犯罪和枪支管控措施相对较少，但枪支文化十分深厚。相反，城市地区的枪支暴力犯罪相对较多，但将枪支用于休闲娱乐的机会则很少。并且，从殖民地时期的波士顿到十九世纪的墓碑镇，再到如今的纽约市，枪支在城市中历来受到更为严格的管控——这种程度的地域差异在其他任何一项宪法权利中都很难找到。本文主张，第二修正案的理论解读以及各州法律中州一级的法律与地方一级法律发生冲突时的适用原则，都可以且应当将这些长期存在于城市和乡村之间的、枪支使用和管控上的明显差异纳入法律层面。如此一来，（不仅）能够为当下陷入僵局的控枪辩论提供新的可能性，（还）能够在保护乡村枪支文化的同时为解决城市枪支暴力问题留出空间，同时也能继续保持美国长期以来在枪支问题上的地方主义传统。

ABSTRACT. Public policy in the United States is disproportionately responsive to the wealthy, and the traditional response to this problem, campaign finance regulation, has failed. As students of politics have long recognized, however, political influence flows not only from wealth but also from organization, a form of political power open to all income groups. Accordingly, as this Essay argues, a promising alternative to campaign finance regulations is legal interventions designed to facilitate political organizing by the poor and middle class. To date, the most important legal intervention of this kind has been labor law, and the labor union has been the central vehicle for this type of organizing. But the labor union as a political-organizational vehicle suffers a fundamental flaw: unions bundle political organization with collective bargaining, a highly contested form of economic organization. As a result, opposition to collective bargaining impedes unions’ ability to serve as a political-organizing vehicle for lower- and middle-income groups.

摘要：美国的公共政策存在过分迎合富人利益的倾向，而传统的应对方法——对竞选资金进行监管——已经失败了。正如研究政治学的学生们早已意识到的那样，能够产生政治影响的不仅有财富，还有组织——一种向各收入阶层都开放的政治权力形式。因此，正如本文所主张的，代替竞选资金监管措施，另一种颇具前景的应对方法是通过法律干预措施，促进穷人和中产阶级之间政治联盟的形成。目前，这类法律干预措施中最重要的一种是劳动法，而工会是其促进相应政治联盟形成的核心工具。但是，作为政治组织工具的工会存在一个根本缺陷：其将组织政治联盟与集体谈判（目的）捆绑在一起，而集体谈判是一种经济组织形式，且其备受争议。针对集体谈判的广泛存在的反对，最终阻碍了工会作为政治组织工具，发挥团结低、中产阶级的效果。

This Essay proposes that labor law unbundle the union, allowing employees to organize politically through the union form without also organizing economically for collective bargaining purposes. Doing so would have the immediate effect of liberating political-organizational efforts from the constraints of collective bargaining, an outcome that could mitigate representational inequality. The Essay identifies the legal reforms that would be necessary to enable such unbundled “political unions” to succeed. It concludes by looking beyond the union context and suggesting a broader regime of reforms aimed at facilitating political organizing by those income groups for whom representational inequality is now a problem.

本文建议劳动法对工会（与集体谈判）进行解绑，允许职工为政治目的组织工会，而非仅限于集体谈判这一经济性的组织目的。这样做首先能够使政治组织活动摆脱集体谈判目的的束缚，进而还有望减轻（政治运作中的）代表失衡问题。本文明确了一些亟需进行的法律改革，以期使这种不受约束的“政治联盟”成功成为现实。在结尾，文章跳出工会问题的语境，为促进各个受代表失衡问题困扰的收入阶层群体形成（相应的）政治组织，提出了一系列更广泛的改革建议。

ABSTRACT. The Seventh Amendment mandates juries in federal courts for cases that would have required them at common law. Yet the nation’s highest federal court has presided over a jury trial in only one reported case, Georgia v. Brailsford (1794). The prospect of a jury trial in the Supreme Court makes the case intriguing enough. Brailsford, however, is even more well-known for its provocative language on the jury’s power to decide the law as well as the facts. Nevertheless, the trial remains largely unstudied. This Note examines the case’s extant documents and argues that the jury the Supreme Court used was a special jury of merchants in the tradition of Lord Mansfield. This conclusion offers insights into how the Supreme Court might negotiate a jury trial in a future case if the Seventh Amendment should demand it. Further, this Note’s finding provides a context to understand better Chief Justice Jay’s words on the jury’s authority to determine the law as well as the facts.

摘要：第七修正案规定，在联邦法院的普通法诉讼中，符合特定条件的案件必须使用陪审团进行审判。但是，我国最高级别的联邦法院仅在一起公开案件中使用过陪审团，即乔治亚州诉布雷斯福德案（1794）。（尽管仅就其证明了）最高法院在审判中也有使用陪审团的可能性这一点而言，该案件就已经足够引人入胜。但是，布雷斯福德案更为人所知的，是那段主张陪审团既有权审判事实也有权决定法律，从而引起了广泛争议的判决词。尽管如此，这场审判还有很多未被研究透彻的地方。本文研究了与该案有关的现存文件，并主张（该案中）最高法院使用的陪审团，其实是一种商人特别陪审团，正如曼斯菲尔德伯爵在过去曾经使用过的那种一样。这一结论为未来，当第七修正案有要求的时候，最高法院可能会如何组织陪审团审判提供了启示。除此之外，本文的这一发现，还为更好地理解首席大法官杰伊关于陪审团既有权审判事实也有权决定法律的那段论述，提供了一个背景。

（注：本评论文章原文没有摘要。以下内容系译者根据文章内容总结归纳所得。）

全文链接：

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/comment/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-political-question-of-statutory-interpretation-the-implications-of-zivotofsky-v-clinton

原文链接：

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/issue/issue/volume-123-issue-1-october-2013