法律翻译｜《耶鲁法律评论》第126卷第3期目录+摘要

译 者｜周文君 布里斯托大学LL.M.

一 审｜汪晨涵 复旦大学法律硕士

二 审｜LYJ 中国政法大学经济法硕士

编 辑｜杜宜臻 美国范德堡大学本科

责 编 | Izzy 美国西北大学LL.M.

Article: Localist Administrative Law

文章：地方主义行政法

作者：Nestor M. Davidson

Abstract 摘要

To read the voluminous literature on administrative law is to inhabit a world focused almost exclusively on federal agencies. This myopic view, however, ignores the wide array of administrative bodies that make and implement policy at the local-government level. The administrative law that emerges from the vast subterranean regulatory state operating within cities, suburbs, towns, and counties has gone largely unexamined.

阅读大量行政法文献即是栖居于一个几乎只关注联邦政府机构的世界。然而，这种目光短浅的观点，忽视了在地方政府层级制定和实施政策的大批政府机构。产生于大量运行在城市、郊区、城镇和郡县的地下管理政府的行政法，一直未被充分研究。

Not only are scholars ignoring a key area of governance, but courts have similarly failed to develop an administrative jurisprudence that recognizes what is distinctive about local agencies. The underlying justifications for core administrative law doctrines at the federal level, such as deference to agency expertise and respect for separation of powers, must be adapted for local contexts in which mayors can sit on city councils, agencies may operate with few clear procedural constraints, and ordinary citizens can play a direct role in determining policy.

不仅学者们忽视了行政治理的一个关键领域，而且法院也没有发展出一套认可地方行政机构独特之处的行政法学。联邦层面核心行政法理论的基本理由，比如尊重行政机构专业知识和尊重三权分立，必须调整适应地方环境。在地方环境中，市长可以列席城市委员会，政府机构的运行可能几乎无明确程序限制，并且普通市民可以直接参与政策决定。

To remedy these gaps in the literature and the doctrine, this Article makes three contributions. First, it offers a detailed descriptive account of local administration, outlining domains of local agency action, the governmental structures that define those agencies, and practical details of local agency operation. The Article then draws from this empirical grounding to identify particularly salient factors that can more transparently inform judicial review of a variety of local agency actions, from statutory interpretation to substantive policymaking to enforcement and licensing. These factors include the particular and varied nature of local-government structures, the tension between informality and procedural legitimacy within local administration, the mottled interplay of public and private spheres in local governance, and local agency expertise that reflects local knowledge.

为了弥补文献和学说的空白，本文作出了三项贡献。第一，本文提出了一个关于地方政府的详细描述解释，概述了地方政府机构功能领域、界定这些机构的政府结构、以及地方机构运行实际细节。然后，本文从这些经验基础出发识别出特别突出的因素，这些因素能够更加明显地影响到对各种地方政府机构行为的司法审查，从法律解释到实质性政策制定、实施和许可。这些因素包括地方政府结构的特殊性和多样性、地方行政机构内部的非正式性和程序合法之间的紧张关系、地方政府治理中公共和私人领域的混杂交融、以及反映地方情况的地方政府机构的专业知识。

图片来源于网络 (lawliberty.org)

This localist perspective, finally, has direct relevance to core scholarly debates in both local-government law and administrative law. An understanding of local administration adds a layer of internal complexity to questions of local-government authority and identity, reorienting discussions about democratic accountability and experimentalism. It likewise holds the promise of deepening administrative jurisprudence with a perspective that reaches across the entire range of our vertical federalism. In short, the world of local agencies opens a window for the study of an important, yet underappreciated, set of institutions. Calling attention to these agencies will ultimately foster a new discourse about administrative law for local-government scholars and a broader understanding of governance for scholars of administrative law.

最后，这种地方主义视角与地方政府法和行政法领域的核心学术争论有直接关系。对地方行政的理解对地方政府权力和身份问题增加了一层内在复杂性，重新定位了关于民主问责制和经验主义的讨论。同样，它还有希望以一种横跨我们整个垂直联邦政治制度的视角来深化行政法学研究。简言之，地方政府机构领域为研究一套重要却未受重视的组织机构打开了一扇窗。呼吁关注这些机构，最终将促进地方政府学者对行政法的新讨论，以及增进行政法学者对行政治理的广义理解。

Article: The Perils of Experimentation

文章：实验危害

作者：Michael A. Livermore

Abstract 摘要

More than eighty years after Justice Brandeis coined the phrase “laboratories of democracy,” the concept of policy experimentation retains its currency as a leading justification for decentralized governance. This Article examines the downsides of experimentation, and in particular the potential for decentralization to lead to the production of information that exacerbates public choice failures. Standard accounts of experimentation and policy learning focus on information concerning the social welfare effects of alternative policies. But learning can also occur along a political dimension as information about ideological preferences, campaign techniques, and electoral incentives is revealed. Both types of information can be put to use in the policy arena by a host of individual and institutional actors that have a wide range of motives, from a public-spirited concern for the general welfare to a desire to maximize personal financial returns. In this complex environment, there is no guarantee that the information that is generated by experimentation will lead to social benefits. This Article applies this insight to prior models of federalism developed in the legal and political science literatures to show that decentralization can lead to the overproduction of socially harmful information. As a consequence, policymakers undertaking a decentralization calculation should seek a level of decentralization that best balances the costs and benefits of information production. To illustrate the legal and policy implications of the arguments developed here, this Article examines two contemporary environmental rulemakings of substantial political, legal, and economic significance: a rule to define the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act, and a rule to limit greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity-generating sector.

在布兰迪斯大法官创造出“民主实验室”这一说法80余年之后，政策实验（policy experimentation）这一概念仍然是普遍认可的权力下放行政治理的主要理由。本文研究了实验的缺点，尤其是权力下放可能导致信息产生，从而加剧公共选择的失败。实验和政策学习的标准说法侧重于有关替代性政策的社会福利效应的信息。但是，随着意识形态偏好、竞选技巧和选举动机等信息的披露，学习也会发生在政治层面。上述两类信息都可被许多个人和机构参与者用于政策领域，这些参与者怀有多种不同的动机，涵盖对公共福利的公益性关注到对个人经济回报最大化的渴望。在这种复杂坏境下，无法保证实验产生的信息会带来社会效益。本文将该见解应用于先前法律和政治科学文献中发展出的联邦制模型，以表明权力下放会导致社会有害信息过剩。因此，推算权力下放的政策制定者应该寻求一种可以实现信息产出成本和收益最佳平衡的权力下放水平。为了说明上述论点的法律和政策含义，本文研究了两个具有重大政治、法律和经济意义的当代环境规则的制定：一个是界定《清洁水法案》（Clean Water Act）管辖范围的规定，另一个是限制发电部门温室气体排放的规定。

Note: Amazon's Antitrust Paradox

评注：亚马逊反垄断悖论

作者：Lina M. Khan

Abstract 摘要

Amazon is the titan of twenty-first century commerce. In addition to being a retailer, it is now a marketing platform, a delivery and logistics network, a payment service, a credit lender, an auction house, a major book publisher, a producer of television and films, a fashion designer, a hardware manufacturer, and a leading host of cloud server space. Although Amazon has clocked staggering growth, it generates meager profits, choosing to price below-cost and expand widely instead. Through this strategy, the company has positioned itself at the center of e-commerce and now serves as essential infrastructure for a host of other businesses that depend upon it. Elements of the firm’s structure and conduct pose anticompetitive concerns—yet it has escaped antitrust scrutiny.

亚马逊是21世纪商业巨头。除作为一个零售商以外，它现在还是一个营销平台，一个物流配送网络，一个支付服务系统，一个信贷机构，一个拍卖行，一个主要书刊出版社，一个影视剧制作方，一个时装设计师，一个硬件制造商，还是一个领先的云服务器空间主机。尽管亚马逊已经取得了惊人的增长，但它的利润微薄，它选择了低于成本的定价和广泛扩张。通过这一战略，该公司已将自己定位在电子商务的中心，现在是许多其他企业依赖的重要基础设施。该公司结构和行为的基础要素构成反竞争问题——但是它却逃过了反垄断审查。

图片来源于网络 (seattletimes.com)

This Note argues that the current framework in antitrust—specifically its pegging competition to “consumer welfare,” defined as short-term price effects—is unequipped to capture the architecture of market power in the modern economy. We cannot cognize the potential harms to competition posed by Amazon’s dominance if we measure competition primarily through price and output. Specifically, current doctrine underappreciates the risk of predatory pricing and how integration across distinct business lines may prove anticompetitive. These concerns are heightened in the context of online platforms for two reasons. First, the economics of platform markets create incentives for a company to pursue growth over profits, a strategy that investors have rewarded. Under these conditions, predatory pricing becomes highly rational—even as existing doctrine treats it as irrational and therefore implausible. Second, because online platforms serve as critical intermediaries, integrating across business lines positions these platforms to control the essential infrastructure on which their rivals depend. This dual role also enables a platform to exploit information collected on companies using its services to undermine them as competitors.

本评注认为，目前的反垄断框架——尤其是将竞争与定义为短期价格效应的“消费者福利”挂钩——并不能够捕捉到现代经济中市场力量的结构。如果我们主要通过价格和产出衡量竞争，我们就无法认识到亚马逊的主导地位对竞争造成的潜在危害。具体来说，目前的理论低估了掠夺性定价（predatory pricing）的风险，以及不同业务部门的整合如何可能被证明是反竞争的。在网络平台环境下这些问题愈发突出，原因有二。第一，平台市场的经济性激励企业追求增长而非利润，这是投资者所奖励的策略。在这些情况下，掠夺性定价变得非常合理——即便现有学说认为它不合理且不可信。第二，因为网络平台是关键中介，不同业务部门的整合使这些平台能够控制其竞争对手所依赖的必要基础设施。这种双重角色也使平台可以利用公司利用自家服务收集到的信息来削弱竞争对手。

This Note maps out facets of Amazon’s dominance. Doing so enables us to make sense of its business strategy, illuminates anticompetitive aspects of Amazon’s structure and conduct, and underscores deficiencies in current doctrine. The Note closes by considering two potential regimes for addressing Amazon’s power: restoring traditional antitrust and competition policy principles or applying common carrier obligations and duties.

本评注勾绘出亚马逊统治版图的切面。这样做能够使我们理解其商业战略，阐明亚马逊的结构和行为的反竞争方面，并强调当前学说中的不足之处。最后，本评注考量了处理亚马逊力量的两种潜在制度：修复传统反垄断和竞争政策原则，或适用公共运营商责任和义务。

Note: Playing Nicely: How Judges Can Improve Dodd-Frank and Foster Interagency Collaboration

评注：友好相处：法官如何改善《多德-弗兰克法案》并促进机构合作

作者：Joshua C. Macey

Abstract 摘要

Devised in the aftermath of the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) was enacted to reduce risk, increase transparency, and promote market integrity. Since Dodd-Frank was signed into law in 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have promulgated numerous rules to carry out these statutory mandates. This Note analyzes inconsistencies in the two Commissions’ swaps regulations and argues that those inconsistencies have forced regulators and market participants to bear substantial costs and, more importantly, have thwarted the congressional goals underlying Dodd-Frank. To this day, neither the SEC nor the CFTC has offered an adequate justification for its decision not to harmonize swaps rules.

《多德-弗兰克华尔街改革和消费者保护法》（《多德-弗兰克法案》/ Dodd-Frank）构思并诞生于“大萧条”以来最严重的经济危机之后，旨在减少风险，提高透明度，并促进市场诚信。自2010年《多德-弗兰克法案》签署生效以来，证券交易监督委员会（SEC）和商品期货交易委员会（CFTC）已颁布了大量规定以实施这些法定命令。本评注分析了这两个委员会互换法规中的矛盾之处，并主张这些矛盾之处已经迫使监管机构和市场参与者承担了大量成本，更重要的是，已经阻碍了《多德-弗兰克法案》的会议目标。时至今日，证券交易监督委员会和商品期货交易委员会都没有为其不协调互换法规的决定给出充分理由。

In this Note, I argue that the Commissions’ failure to account for these costs constitutes an illegal exercise of authority. The crux of my argument is that the Commissions cannot perform meaningful cost-benefit analysis or fulfill the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) reason-giving requirements without considering the incremental costs generated by regulatory inconsistencies. I conclude that when the SEC and CFTC fail to justify the costs of regulatory divergences, both the APA and the cost-benefit requirements in the agencies’ authorizing statutes can—and should—be read to require the Commissions to adjust their rules to account for the costs of inconsistent and duplicative swaps regulations.

在本评注中，我认为两个委员会未能解释这些成本，该行为构成非法行使权力。我的观点的核心是，两个委员会无法进行有意义的成本效益分析，或者履行了《行政程序法》（APA）解释原因的要求但未考虑管理性矛盾导致的成本增加。我的结论是，如果证券交易监督委员会和商品期货交易委员会未能证明监管分歧的成本合理，《行政程序法》和机构授权法规中的成本效益要求，都可以且应该被解读为要求该两个委员会调整其规定，以解释矛盾和重复的互换规定导致的成本。

Review: Systemic Triage: Implicit Racial Bias in the Criminal Courtroom

书评：系统性分流：刑事法庭中的隐形种族偏见

作者：L. Song Richardson

图片来源于网络 (nicolevancleve.com)

CROOK COUNTY: RACISM AND INJUSTICE IN AMERICA’S LARGEST CRIMINAL COURT

《罪犯之城：美国最大刑事法庭中的种族歧视和不公》

BY NICOLE VAN CLEVE

图书作者：NICOLE VAN CLEVE

STANFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, APRIL 2016

斯坦福大学出版社，2016年4月

Introduction 引言

The criminal justice system is broken. Its policies and policing practices flood courtrooms in urban environments with too many cases to handle given available resources. Many are cases involving indigent individuals of color accused of nonviolent offenses. Scholars like Sasha Natapoff, Jenny Roberts, and Issa Kohler-Hausmann are bringing much needed attention to this serious issue, focusing primarily on misdemeanor adjudications.

刑事司法系统已经崩溃。其政策和警务实践使太多案件涌入城市环境中的法庭，以至于靠现有资源无法处理。许多案件涉及被指控犯有非暴力罪行的贫困有色人种。Sasha Natapoff、Jenny Roberts和 Issa Kohler-Hausmann等学者正在为这一严重问题带来亟需的关注，他们主要关注轻罪判决。

In a groundbreaking new book, Crook County: Racism and Injustice in America’s Largest Criminal Court, Professor Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve adds an important, novel dimension to this problem. She exposes the deeply flawed operation of the criminal justice system by focusing on how felonies are processed in Cook County, Illinois. Her disturbing ethnography of the Cook County-Chicago criminal courts, the largest unified criminal court system in the United States, is based upon 104 in-depth interviews with judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and private attorneys; her own experiences clerking for both the Cook County District Attorney’s Office and the Cook County Public Defender’s Office; and one thousand hours of felony courtroom observations conducted by 130 court watchers. This mix of perspectives, all of which focus on the court professionals “whose actions define the experience and appearance of justice,” provides a chilling account of how racialized justice is practiced in the Cook County criminal justice system, despite the existence of due process protections and a court record. By “turn[ing] the lens on those in power as they do the marginalizing,” Van Cleve reveals how judges, defense lawyers, and prosecutors transform race-neutral due process protections into the tools of racial punishment.

在一本具有开创性的新书中，即《罪犯之城：美国最大刑事法庭中的种族歧视和不公》，Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve教授将一个重要的新颖角度引入该问题。她通过关注伊利诺伊州库克县的重罪处理方式，揭示出刑事司法系统的运行具有重大缺陷。她对于库克县—芝加哥刑事法庭进行了令人忧心的人种学研究，该法庭是美国最大的统一刑事法庭系统。该研究基于和法官、公诉人、公设辩护人和私人律师的104次深入访谈；她在库克县地区检察官办公室和库克县公设辩护人办公室担任书记员的个人工作经历；以及由130名法庭监督员进行的1000小时重罪法庭观察。这种多视角的混合，都聚焦在法院专业人员身上，这些专业人员的“行动定义了司法审判的体验和表现”。该多视角的混合提供了一个令人不寒而栗的解释，说明了尽管存在正当程序保护和法庭记录，但库克县刑事司法系统是如何实行种族化司法审判的。通过“把镜头切换至当权者因为他们进行边缘化行为”，Van Cleve教授揭示了法官、辩护律师和公诉人是如何将种族中立的正当程序保护转化为种族惩罚工具。

An important theme of Van Cleve’s book is that the racism practiced in the Cook County courts is not “more enigmatic than the overt racism of the past.” Rather, it is equally “pervasive, direct, and violent.” To substantiate this point, she exposes deeply problematic and explicitly racist practices that courtroom actors engage in, despite holding seemingly contradictory perspectives. This is one of the more compelling aspects of her book, since it is unusual to encounter such blatant racism on display in this ostensibly colorblind and post-racial era. She explains how these actors “claim their behavior as ‘colorblind’ through coded language, mimic fairness through due process procedures, and rationalize abuse based on morality—all while achieving the experience of segregation and de facto racism.”

Van Cleve书中的一个重要主题是，库克县法院实行的种族歧视并不“比过去公开的种族歧视更加难以理解。”相反，它们同样“普遍、直接、粗暴。”为证实这一点，她揭露了法庭参与者实施的问题严重且明确的种族歧视做法，尽管他们持有看似矛盾的观点。这是她书中更吸引人的一方面，因为在这个表面上无视肤色的后种族主义时代，通常不会遇到如此公然的种族歧视。她解释了这些参与者是如何“通过隐晦的语言声称他们的行为是‘色盲的’，如何通过正当程序模仿公平，以及如何基于道德将侮辱合理化——所有这些都在实现隔离和事实上种族歧视经历。”

In this Review, I complicate the theory of racism underlying Van Cleve’s ethnography. Although she never states this explicitly, her theory rests on the assumption that racial bias is visible and conscious, even if expressed in ways that mask its presence. This is demonstrated not only by the examples she uses, but also by the book’s conclusion, which encourages readers to go to court to observe the racist practices she describes and thus shame courtroom actors into changing them.

本书评中，我将Van Cleve的人种学研究所依据的种族歧视理论复杂化。尽管她从未明确说明，但是她的理论依赖于一个假设，即种族偏见是可见的、是有意而为的，即使其表达方式掩饰了它的存在。这不仅体现在她引用的例子上，也体现在该书的结论中，该结论鼓励读者前往法庭观察她所描述的种族歧视做法，并使法庭参与者感到羞愧从而改变这些做法。

However, I argue that the problem of racial bias is not so limited. Rather, research from the past several decades reveals that implicit racial biases can influence the behaviors and judgments of even the most consciously egalitarian individuals in ways of which they are unaware and thus unable to control. Additionally, the effects of implicit biases may not be open and obvious. Importantly, then, the absence of discernible racism does not signal the absence of racial bias. Furthermore, since it is not possible to detect the influence of implicit biases on decision making simply through observations and interviews, it is difficult to ferret out and even more difficult to address. Yet, the absence of overtly racist practices does not make the problem of racial bias any less concerning.

然而，我认为种族偏见的问题不只局限于此。相反，过去几十年的研究表明，隐性种族偏见会以人们不易察觉因而无法控制的方式影响人们的行为和判断，即使是最有意识的平等主义者也会受到影响。另外，隐性偏见的影响可能并不公开明显。那么，重要的是，没有明显的种族歧视并不意味着没有种族偏见。此外，由于无法仅仅通过观察和访谈探查出隐性偏见对决策制定的影响，因此很难发现，更难解决。但是，没有公开的种族歧视做法并不意味着种族偏见问题不那么令人担忧。

Despite the fact that implicit biases operate in the shadows, I argue that there is strong reason to suspect that they will influence the judgments of courtroom actors in Cook County, even after blatantly racist practices disappear. This is because criminal courthouses in jurisdictions across the country, including those in Cook County, are bearing the brunt of “tough on crime” policies and policing practices that disproportionately target enforcement of nonviolent and quality of life offenses in indigent, urban, and minority communities. These policies and practices burden the system with more cases than it has the capacity to handle, resulting in what I refer to as systemic triage.

尽管隐性偏见在暗处运作，但我认为有充分的理由怀疑，即使在公然的种族歧视做法消失后，它们仍将会影响库克县法庭参与者的判断。这是因为全国各地的刑事法庭，包括库克县的刑事法庭，都首当其冲受到“严刑峻罚”政策和警务实践的影响。这些政策和实践格外针对贫困、城市和少数族裔群体中的非暴力和生活质量犯罪的执法。这些政策和实践给该系统带来了超过其承载量的大量案件，给该系统增加了负担，导致了我所说的系统性分流。

Triage denotes the process of determining how to allocate scarce resources. In the criminal justice context, scholars typically use the term triage to describe how public defenders attempt to distribute zealous advocacy amongst their clients because crushing caseloads limit their ability to zealously represent them all. In this Review, I build upon my prior work examining public defender triage and use the phrase systemic triage to highlight that all criminal justice system players are impacted by such expansive criminal justice policies and policing practices—not only public defenders, but also the entire cadre of courtroom players, including prosecutors and judges.

分流指的是决定如何分配稀有资源的过程。在刑事司法方面，学者通常使用分流一词描述公设辩护人如何试图在他们的客户中分配热心辩护，因为超负荷的案件量限制了他们积极代理所有客户的能力。在本书评中，基于我此前对公设辩护人分流的研究，我使用系统性分流这一说法来强调，所有的刑事司法系统参与者都受到了这种广泛的刑事司法政策和警务实践的影响，不仅包括公设辩护人，还包括公诉人和法官等全部法庭参与者。

I argue that under conditions of systemic triage, implicit racial biases are likely to thrive. First, these criminal justice policies and policing practices will strengthen the already ubiquitous association between subordinated groups and crime by filling courtrooms with overwhelming numbers of people of color. Second, implicit biases flourish in situations where individuals make decisions quickly and on the basis of limited information, exactly the circumstances that exist under systemic triage. In sum, the problem of racial bias will likely persist under conditions of systemic triage, even when it is not accompanied by patently racist behaviors. This problem is even more pernicious because its subtle nature makes it more challenging to expose and correct.

我认为，在系统性分流的情况下，隐性种族偏见可能会兴起。第一，这些刑事司法政策和警务实践会使大量有色人种填满法庭，从而强化从属群体和犯罪之间已普遍存在的联系。第二，隐性偏见会在个人根据有限信息迅速作出决定的情况下盛行，这正是系统性分流下存在的实际情况。总之，在系统性分流的情况下，种族偏见问题可能将持续存在，即使没有伴随着明显的种族歧视行为。这个问题甚至更加有害，因为其不易被察觉的性质使其更难被揭露和纠正。

This Review proceeds in three parts. Part I summarizes and analyzes Van Cleve’s ethnographic evidence and conclusions. Importantly, because her account is primarily qualitative, I cannot quantify the frequency with which the problematic practices she identifies occur nor determine how representative her examples are. Part II argues that racism in the criminal justice system is more problematic and pernicious than even Van Cleve’s account suggests. Relying on social science evidence demonstrating the existence of implicit racial biases, I argue that these biases can influence the discretionary decisions, perceptions, and practices of even the most well-meaning individuals in ways that are not readily observable. We should be especially concerned about implicit bias in courtrooms experiencing systemic triage. Finally, Part III offers some solutions to reduce the racialized effects of systemic triage.

本书评分三部分进行。第一部分，总结和分析Van Cleve的人种论研究的证据和结论。重要的是，由于她的著述主要是定性研究，我无法量化她所界定的问题做法的发生频率，也无法确定她的例子具有多大的代表性。第二部分，主张刑事司法系统中的种族主义比Van Cleve的著述所称更具问题性和危害性。依靠社会科学证据证明隐性种族偏见存在，我认为这些偏见会以令人难以察觉的方式，影响到人们的自由决定、看法和做法，即使是最具善意的个人也会受到影响。我们应该特别关注经历了系统性分流的法庭上的隐性偏见。最后，第三部分，提出减少系统性分流的种族化影响的一些解决办法。

Comment: The Bostic Question

评论：博斯蒂克问题

作者：Charles C. Bridge

Introduction 引言

Federal criminal procedure regularly struggles with a tension between fairness and finality. The Constitution provides defendants with special privileges and protections designed to prevent injustice, but systemic concerns about efficiency, comity, and finality make it impossible to guarantee a perfect and errorless trial to every defendant. Given the impossibility of perfection, and the tremendous burden associated with carefully scrutinizing each page of each trial transcript, appellate courts rely on defendants to flag possible errors as they arise. One manifestation of that reliance is the fact that the rigor of appellate review often depends on whether the defendant-appellant objected to the purported error at trial.

联邦刑事诉讼程序经常在公平性和终局性之间的紧张关系中挣扎。宪法为被告提供了特权和保护，以防止司法不公。但是对效率、礼让和终局性的系统关注，使得我们无法保证对每个被告都进行一场完美无误的审判。鉴于不可能做到完美，以及仔细审查每一份每一页审判记录的巨大工作量，上诉法院依靠被告在可能出现错误时提出异议。这种依赖的一个表现是，上诉审查的严格程度往往取决于被告-上诉人在审判时是否对所谓的错误提出异议。

In United States v. Bostic, the Sixth Circuit, aiming to facilitate appellate review of sentencing, adopted a prudent procedural rule: the “Bostic Question” (“the Question”). Invoking its “supervisory powers over the district courts,” the court of appeals issued the following instructions:

在美国诉博斯蒂克案中，第六巡回法庭为促进判决上诉审查，采用了一项谨慎的程序规则：“博斯蒂克问题”（ Bostic Question）（以下简称“问题”）。上诉法院援引其“对地区法院的监督权”，发布了以下指令：

[D]istrict courts, after pronouncing the defendant’s sentence but before adjourning the sentencing hearing, [must] ask the parties whether they have any objections to the sentence just pronounced that have not previously been raised. If the district court fails to provide the parties with this opportunity, they will not have forfeited their objections and thus will not be required to demonstrate plain error on appeal. If a party does not clearly articulate any objection and the grounds upon which the objection is based, when given this final opportunity to speak, then that party will have forfeited its opportunity to make any objections not previously raised and thus will face plain error review on appeal.

[地]区法院，在对被告宣判后但在休庭前，[必须]询问各方诉讼参与人对刚刚宣布的判决是否有任何先前尚未提出的反对意见。如果地区法院没有为诉讼参与人提供此机会，他们将不会丧失异议机会，因此他们不需要在上诉中证明明显错误。当一方诉讼参与人被给予这一最后陈述机会时，如果其没有清楚阐明任何异议及该异议的根据，那么该诉讼参与人将丧失提出任何新反对意见的机会，并将在上诉期间面临明显错误审查（plain error review）。

The Sixth Circuit explained that the Question would serve at least two purposes: (1) “permitting the district court to correct on the spot any error it may have made,” and (2) “guiding appellate review” of the sentence imposed.

第六巡回法庭解释道，“问题”具有至少有两个目的：（1）“允许地区法院立刻纠正其可能犯下的任何错误，”以及（2）“指导”对已宣布判决的“上诉审查”。

This Comment endorses these rationales and also draws attention to a third justification, heretofore unrecognized. The Question promotes what Lani Guinier and Gerald Torres have called “demosprudence”—that is, “a democracy-enhancing jurisprudence” grounded not only in “logical reasoning [and] legal principles” but also in a need to “inform and [be] informed by the wisdom of the people.” It does so by inviting oral objections to, and public dialogue about, the sentence imposed by the district court. Further, it tends to “expand the audience for judicial decisionmaking and to engage that audience in democratic deliberation” about criminal law and procedure.

本评论赞同这些理由，同时也提请注意此前未被认可的第三个理由。该“问题”促进了Lani Guinier 和Gerald Torres所称的“民主法学”（demosprudence）——即“一个加强民主制度的法学”，其不仅基于“逻辑推理[和]法律原则”而且还基于“影响和了解人民智慧”的需要。它通过邀请对地区法院所作判决提出口头异议和公共对话来实现。此外，它倾向于“扩大司法决策的受众范围，并使该受众参与”关于刑法和程序的“民主审议”。

This Comment aspires to persuade all federal courts of appeals to adopt the Bostic Question as a requirement for the district courts under their supervision. Part I explains why standards of appellate review have become important in the sentencing context and why, as a result, the Question is necessary. Part II first articulates reasons why courts have been reluctant to follow the Sixth Circuit’s lead and then proceeds to a two-part normative case for the Bostic Question: the Question is sound judicial policy that produces real benefits at a minimal cost, and it has the potential to advance demosprudential values.

本评论旨在说服所有联邦上诉法院采用博斯蒂克问题，作为对其监督下的地区法院的一项要求。第一部分，解释说明为何上诉审查的标准在量刑方面变得很重要，以及，相应地，为何该“问题”很必要。第二部分，首先阐明为何法院一直不愿效仿第六巡回法庭的做法，然后对博斯蒂克问题进行了两部分规范性论证：该“问题”是一项合理的司法政策，可以以最小成本实现真实收益，并且该“问题”具备提升民主法学价值观的潜质。