法律翻译 | 《哈佛法律评论》第133卷第2期目录+摘要

译者｜周文君 布里斯托大学LL.M.

审稿｜曾梓栩 外交学院法本

         张庆 复旦大学法律硕士

编辑｜陈宣颖 西南政法大学本科

1. Article

https://harvardlawreview.org/2019/12/free-speech-and-justified-true-belief/

Free Speech and Justified True Belief

言论自由和确证的真信念

作者：Joseph Blocher

Law often prioritizes justified true beliefs. Evidence, even if probative and correct, must have a proper foundation. Expert witness testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods. Prosecutors are not permitted to trick juries into convicting a defendant, even if that defendant is truly guilty. Judges’ reasons, and not just the correctness of their holdings, are the engines of precedent.

法律通常优先考虑确证的真信念。即使有证明力的、正确的证据也必须要有一个恰当的基础。专家证人证言必须基于可靠的原则和方法产生。即使被告人真的有罪，也不允许公诉人诱导陪审团给该被告人定罪。法官的说理，不仅仅是其主张的正确性依据，更是先前判例的引擎。

Lawyers are, in short, familiar with the notion that one must be right for the right reasons. And yet the standard epistemic theory of the First Amendment — that the marketplace of ideas is the “best test of truth” — has generally focused on truth alone, as if all true beliefs must be treated equally. This thin account leaves the epistemic theory vulnerable to withering criticism, especially in a “post-truth” era.

简言之，律师们很熟悉一个概念，即一个人之所以正确是因其有正确的理由。然而，对于第一修正案的标准认识论--思想的市场是“真相的最佳检验”--通常只关注了真相本身，彷佛所有的真信念都必须被平等对待。这一狭隘的说法致使认识论易受到严厉的批评，尤其是在“后真相”时期。

This Article suggests that the epistemic theory of the First Amendment might be reframed around a different value: not truth alone, but knowledge, roughly defined as justified true belief. Philosophers from Plato until the present day have explored what makes knowledge distinct and distinctly valuable; echoes of those efforts can be heard in First Amendment theory and doctrine as well. A knowledge-based account need not limit the protections of free speech to justified true belief, any more than the marketplace model covers only truth, and may even help resolve thorny First Amendment issues like those involving professional speech and institutional deference. The goal of this Article is to provide a richer epistemic account of the First Amendment at a time when it is sorely needed.

本文认为，第一修正案的认识论或许可以围绕一个不同的价值进行重塑，即：不仅是真相，还有知识，概称确证的真信念。从柏拉图至今的哲学家们，一直在探索是什么让知识如此与众不同且具有显著的价值；这些努力的反响，在第一修正案的理论和学说中可见一斑。基于知识的理论观点不需要将对言论自由的保护局限于确证的真信念，正如市场模型仅涵盖真相，甚至有可能帮助解决第一修正案相关的棘手问题，比如涉及专业言论和机构服从的问题。本文的目的是在迫切需要之时，对第一修正案提出一个更丰富的认识论观点。

2. Article

https://harvardlawreview.org/2019/12/solitary-confinement-in-the-young-republic/

Solitary Confinement in the Young Republic

早期美国的单独监禁

作者：David M. Shapiro

America’s first system for punishing criminals with solitary confinement began at the Walnut Street Jail, an institution that stood right behind Independence Hall in Philadelphia. Historical and archival evidence from that facility demonstrates that the unchecked use of solitary confinement in today’s correctional facilities contravenes norms that prevailed in the Constitution’s founding era. In the 1790s, a robust array of checks and balances cabined the discretion of corrections officials to isolate prisoners. Judges, legislatures, and high public officials regulated human isolation at the jail, leaving prison administrators relatively little power over solitary confinement. Most importantly, long periods of seclusion could be imposed only by courts acting pursuant to criminal sentencing statutes. Jail officials had the power to impose solitary confinement for disciplinary violations, but only for a matter of days or weeks. Today, however, deference to prison officials has swallowed these constraints. In the present regime, some prisoners remain isolated for years and decades based on decisions by prison officials that courts hesitate to second-guess. The historical record casts doubt upon any originalist argument that the founding generation would have embraced the contemporary regime of judicial deference in matters of human isolation.

美国第一个用单独监禁惩罚罪犯的制度开始于核桃街监狱，该监狱正位于费城独立纪念馆后方。来自该监狱的历史和档案证据显示，当今惩教机构不受限制地使用单独监禁，违反了宪法设立时期的规定。在1790年代，一系列强有力的审查和制衡措施制约着管教官员隔离犯人的自由裁量权。法官、立法机构和高级公职人员监管着监狱中的犯人隔离，而监狱管理人员对单独监禁的权力相对较小。最重要的是，长期隔离只能由法院根据刑事成文法判处。若犯人违反纪律，监狱官有权对其实施单独监禁，但只能监禁几天或数周。然而，现在，对监狱官员的顺从已经吞噬了这些限制。在当前制度下，一些犯人因监狱官员的决定被监禁长达数年甚至数十年，然而法院不愿对这些决定进行事后批评。历史记录引起了对原义主义者观点的怀疑，该观点认为开国元勋们应该会接受关于人身隔离问题的当代司法服从制度。

译者注：The Young Republic 指独立战争后的早期美国。