法律翻译 | 《纽约大学法律评论》第97卷第3期

译者 | 司徒沛宏 纽约大学LL.M.

审稿 | 岳文豪 上海交通大学法学硕士

         陈飞越 爱丁堡LLM

编辑 | 李薇 浙江工商大学本科

         李建云 湖南师范大学本科

责编 | 王有蓉 中国政法大学硕士

Reflections About Judicial Independence

司法独立之回顾

作者：Sonia Sotomayor

原文链接：

https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/NYULawReview-Volume-97-Issue-3-Sotomayor-Katzmann-Lecture-1.pdf

The Power of the Prior Conviction

先前定罪的影响力

作者：Jane Kelly

原文链接:

https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/NYULawReview-Volume-97-Issue-3-Kelly-Madison-Lecture.pdf

Introduction

Before becoming a judge, I worked as a federal public defender for nearly twenty years. Over that time, I represented hundreds of clients. During my first meetings with them and the ones that followed, my clients were focused on defending themselves against what they had just been charged with. I was, of course, always interested in having these conversations. But I also wanted to talk as soon as possible about their prior convictions.

在成为法官之前，我当了将近二十年的联邦公设辩护人。在那个期间，我代理了数百名客户。在最初的会面以及随后的几次会面中，我的客户们都专注于辩护自己最近被指控的罪名。当然，我对这些对话总是充满兴趣。但我也想尽快地把话题转移到他们的先前定罪中来。

This interest in my clients’ criminal records was not always intuitive to them, especially those who had not been charged with a crime in years. If they were being accused of selling cocaine the day before, why did it matter that they had been convicted for robbery ten years earlier? I had to explain that their prior convictions were inextricable from the charges they were now facing.

我对客户们犯罪记录的兴趣对他们来说并不总是直观的，尤其是那些已经多年没有遭到犯罪指控的客户。打个比方，如果他们在前一天被指控贩卖可卡因，那么十年前被判抢劫罪又为什么会有关系呢？此时，我只能跟他们解释先前定罪与他们现在面临的指控是密不可分的。

In the federal system, every decision a criminal defendant makes is made in the long shadow cast by the sentence they might receive. These sentences tend to be significant—terms of imprisonment often much longer than a person would face for similar conduct in state court. Aside from immigration offenses, firearm and drug offenses are the most commonly prosecuted federal crimes. And the sentence imposed upon conviction is driven in significant part by a person’s prior record. Under federal recidivism statutes, prior convictions can trigger a mandatory minimum sentence and increase a statutory maximum sentence enormously. For example, the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), one of the federal recidivist statutes that I will be discussing in more detail shortly, converts a statutory range of zero to ten years for unlawful possession of a firearm to a statutory minimum of fifteen years, up to life, for someone who has three or more prior convictions for “violent felon[ies]” or “serious drug offense[s].”

在联邦系统中，刑事被告人的每一个决定都是在他们可能受到的判决的阴影下做出的。这些判决往往影响重大——对于类似的犯罪行为，联邦法院的刑期通常都比州法院的刑期要长得多。除移民犯罪之外，枪支和毒品犯罪在联邦犯罪中最常遭到起诉。定罪之后刑期的长短很大程度上取决于先前的犯罪记录。根据联邦关于累犯的法规，先前定罪可以触发强制性的最低刑期且大大增加法定的最高刑期。例如，根据《携带武器的职业犯罪法案》（ACCA）（我将在下文详细讨论此联邦累犯法规），如果已经被定罪三次或以上的“暴力犯罪”或者“严重毒品犯罪”时，再次实施非法携带武器的法定刑期将从0到10年加重为至少15年，最高为终身监禁。

Similarly, under federal drug laws, mandatory minimum sentences are triggered not only by the total quantity of drugs involved in the offense, but also by a person’s prior record. Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)—the primary federal statute that criminalizes drug distribution—if you sell fifty grams or more of pure methamphetamine and are convicted, that is not just a fair amount of meth; it is also a sentence of no less than ten years. But if you have served a sentence of a year or more on a conviction for either a “serious drug felony” or a “serious violent felony,” the minimum sentence on your new federal charge may increase to fifteen years. If you have two such prior convictions, your sentence would be no less than twenty-five years in prison. And the United States Sentencing Guidelines range—which must be calculated and considered for every federal sentencing—similarly places great weight on a person’s prior criminal record.

类似的，根据联邦毒品法，除了涉案毒品的总量，被告人的前科记录同样可以触发强制性最低刑罚。根据《管制物质法》（CSA）-将毒品分销入罪的主要联邦法规-的规定，如果有人出售50克或更多的纯甲基苯丙胺（冰毒）并被定罪，这不仅意味着相当数量的冰毒，同时也代表了该人将获得不少于十年的刑期。但如果该人曾因 “严重毒品重罪 ”或“严重暴力重罪 ”服刑一年或以上，那新罪的刑期可能会增加到15年。如果这样的前科有两次，那刑期将不低于25年。而每次联邦量刑时都必须衡量和考虑的《美国量刑指南》同样把一个人的先前犯罪记录视为举足轻重。

There can be little dispute that the prior conviction plays a powerful role in federal sentencing. Yet why it does, whether it should, and what we might miss by taking its value for granted are issues worth exploring. What does a prior conviction really tell us about a person? And how comfortable should we be in relying on it as heavily as we do in federal court when determining the appropriate sentence for an individual defendant, especially when the result is a sentence of incarceration of years or even decades?

毫无疑问，先前定罪在联邦判决中具有极大的影响力。但值得探讨的问题是，为什么它会发挥这么重要的作用？这样做是否应该？以及如果我们将这样的价值当作理所当然，我们又会错过什么呢？先前定罪向我们传递的到底是关于这个人的什么信息？当我们以前科来确定被告人的适当刑期，尤其是当判决结果是数年甚至数十年的监禁时，我们是否对此足够笃定？

In considering these questions, I first provide some historical perspective, before looking at how we use prior convictions in federal sentencing and reviewing some of the criticisms of the current framework. Then, I expand on some of those criticisms to propose that we reexamine the wisdom of that framework. When we rely so heavily on prior convictions, I suggest, we do more than simply factor in a person’s prior unlawful conduct. We also risk importing a number of broader racial and socioeconomic inequities that may have contributed to the making of that prior conviction in the first instance.

在考虑这些问题时，我将首先从历史视角对其进行解释，然后再审视我们在联邦判刑中如何利用先前判决，并回顾对当前关于先前定罪的法律框架的一些批评。随后，我进一步论述了其中一些批评，并提议我们重新审视该框架所蕴含的智慧。我建议，在我们强烈依赖先前定罪时，可以不只是简单地考虑到一个人先前实施的非法行为本身。我们还可以大胆引入更广泛的种族和社会经济不平等等因素，这些因素可能在一开始就促成了先前定罪。

I will note here that prior convictions affect litigants in the federal system in numerous ways beyond sentencing. Before a person is even arrested, a police officer’s knowledge that they have a criminal record can support the officer’s decision to stop and search them without a warrant. At the charging stage, a prior felony conviction can transform possession of a firearm from a legal activity—indeed an activity afforded constitutional protection—to an illegal one, a crime nearly 8,000 people were convicted of in 2019, over half of whom were Black. In the rare case that goes to trial in federal court, a defendant’s prior convictions can be used against them to prove their intent to commit the charged crime or, if they take the stand, to impeach them. Looking beyond criminal law, in immigration cases the fact and details of a person’s criminal record take on tremendous importance in determining their eligibility for lawful status. These are all important topics. But my focus here will be on how and why the prior conviction plays a role in federal sentencing—and specifically on the shortcomings of the current approach.

我将指出，在联邦系统中，先前定罪对诉讼当事人的影响不止于量刑，而是渗透到各个方面。甚至在被逮捕之前，一个人的犯罪记录可以支持警察在没有搜查令的情况下对其进行拦截和搜查。在指控阶段，先前的重罪定罪可以将持有枪支从合法活动——且事实上是受到宪法保护的活动-——变成非法活动。2019年，有近8000人被判非法持有枪支，其中一半以上是黑人。在联邦法院审理的少量案件中，被告人的先前定罪可以用来证明现在指控罪名的犯罪意图，或者在他们作为证人出庭作证的时候用以弹劾他们。除了刑法之外，在移民案件中，一个人的犯罪记录中的事实和细节也对决定他们是否有资格获得合法身份方面具有极大的重要性。这些都是非同小可的话题。但我在本文的重点是，在联邦判决中，以前的定罪如何以及为何起作用，我尤其关注是当前模式的缺点。

Natural Transplants

自然移植

作者：Vanessa Xasado Pérez, Yael R. Lifshitz

原文链接:

https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-97-number-3/natural-transplants/

Policymakers are constantly faced with the complex task of managing novel challenges. At times, these challenges result from new technologies: Consider fights over allocating air rights for drones or decisions about how to share scarce vaccines in a pandemic. Other times the resources are old, but the challenges are new, such as how to fairly allocate water in times of unprecedented drought or previously undesirable rare earth minerals that are in demand for modern manufacturing and energy production. Often, instead of carefully tailoring a regime to the new resource, decisionmakers simply rely on mechanisms they are familiar with. When jurisdictions borrow from each other, scholars call this a “legal transplant”—as when one state copies another state’s innovations or when the federal government learns from the “laboratories of democracy.” This Article unveils a new dimension of legal transplants: transplants across subject areas. By transplants across subject areas, this article refers to instances when a jurisdiction looks for doctrines in other legal areas, often within its own legal system, when regulating a new resource or addressing a new challenge.

政策制定者不断面临着处理新挑战的复杂任务。有时，这些挑战来自于新技术：比如对无人机上空使用权的争抢，或在疫情中如何共享稀缺疫苗的决定。除此之外，旧资源也会带来新的挑战，比如在史无前例的旱灾前如何公平分配水资源，或对以前没有需求，但现代制造业和能源生产亟需的稀土矿如何分配的问题。通常情况下，决策制定者不是根据新的资源情况，而是简单依赖他们熟悉的机制来制定制度。当各司法管辖区互相借鉴时，学者们称之为“法律移植”，比如当一个州借鉴另一个州的制度创新，或者联邦政府从“民主实验室”[1]中进行学习时。本文揭示一个新层面上的法律移植：跨学科领域的移植。跨学科领域的移植在本文中指当一个司法管辖区在管理一种新的资源或应对一个新的挑战时，在另一个法律领域中寻找理论的情形（通常在自己的法律体系中）。

This Article makes three key contributions. First, it identifies a new type of transplant—between subject matters within a jurisdiction. Second, it analyzes the reasons for internal, cross-subject legal transplants and the criteria for selecting which subject areas to copy from. Third, the Article brings the legal transplants literature to bear, specifically, on natural resource law. It explores two cases, groundwater and wind energy, where policymakers and courts have borrowed from other resource schemes, often ignoring the scientific and social differences between these natural resources. Other areas of law, such as the incorporation of contract doctrines in landlord-tenant relations, are also described to show the explanatory power of the natural transplant framework. This conceptual framework is then applied to new mineral developments in space and the deep sea. Cross-subject transplants may be more prevalent than previously appreciated, and understanding them will pave the way to analyze the regulation of new developments in natural resources, infrastructure, and beyond.

本文主要贡献有三。首先，它识别出了一种新的移植类型——在一个法域内的不同学科之间的移植。第二，它分析了法域内部跨学科间法律移植的原因，以及对移植的学科领域的选择标准。第三，本文将法律移植的论述部分专门聚焦于自然资源法。这里探讨了两个案例，关于地下水和风能，在这两个案例中，政策制定者和法院借鉴了其他的领域的资源管理框架，却往往忽略了这些自然资源之间的科学和社会差异。自然移植的框架在其他法律领域也很有解释力，比如在房屋租赁关系与合同原则的融合方面。这个概念框架随后被应用于太空和深海的新矿物开发。跨学科法律移植可能比我们认为的更普遍，了解它们将为我们分析自然资源、基础设施等领域的新发展的监管铺平道路。

Gerrylaundering

杰利洗涤

作者：Robert Yablon

原文链接:

https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/NYULawReview-Volume-97-Issue-3-Yablon-.pdf

As they carry out their decennial redistricting duties, those in power sometimes audaciously manipulate district lines to secure an electoral advantage. In other words, they gerrymander. Often, however, the existing map already gives those in power a significant edge, and they may see little need for an overhaul. For them, the name of the game during redistricting is continuity rather than change.

在十年一次的选区重新划分时，当权者有时会大胆地操纵选区线来确保其选举优势。换句话说，这些当权者正在进行“杰利蝾螈”（gerrymander[2]）。然而，在通常情况下，地图上现有的分区已经给当权者带来了巨大的优势，他们也可能并不认为有彻底修改分区的必要。他们以延续优势作为根本目标，而非改变游戏规则。

This Article introduces the concept of “gerrylaundering” to describe mapmakers’ efforts to lock in their favorable position by preserving key elements of the existing map. Gerrylaundering and gerrymandering both serve anti-competitive ends, but they do so through different means. Unlike gerrymandering, gerrylaundering requires no conspicuous cracking and packing of disfavored voters. Instead, it involves what this Article dubs locking and stocking: Mapmakers lock in prior district configurations to the extent possible and stock each new district with one incumbent. Based on a review of redistricting practices in all fifty states, this Article concludes that gerrylaundering is widespread and that self-serving mapmakers commonly combine gerrylaundering and gerrymandering techniques in varying proportions to achieve their preferred results.

在本文中，我引入“杰利洗涤”（Gerrylaundering）的概念，来形容选区划分者试图通过保留现有选区划分的关键要素来锁定其有利地位。杰利洗涤和杰利蝾螈的目标都是反竞争，但是它们通过不同的方式来实现这个目的。与杰利蝾螈不同，杰利洗涤不需要对劣势选民进行明显的集中选票和分区选票。相反，其涉及本文所称的锁定和储存：即选区划分者尽可能地锁定之前的选区配置，并在每个新选区储备一名在位者。通过回顾实践中五十个州的选区重划，本文得出杰利洗涤的情况十分普遍，且这些自私自利的选区划分者通常把杰利洗涤和杰利蝾螈用不同比例结合起来，以达到他们想要的结果。

Recognizing gerrylaundering as a phenomenon enriches existing redistricting discourse by spotlighting the insidious nature of continuity strategies: They serve to advantage those in power, yet, since they appear more restrained than radical redesigns, they come with a veneer of legitimacy. This Article concludes that the veneer is thin. As a legal matter, efforts to preserve district cores and protect incumbents do not stand on the same footing as efforts to comply with traditional geographic districting principles. As a policy matter, gerrylaundering is more likely to subvert core democratic values than to foster them. At least two significant takeaways follow: First, courts should approach continuity criteria skeptically both when they review challenges to redistricting plans and when they draw maps themselves. Second, and more broadly, minimizing the legacy of prior maps has the potential to inject healthy dynamism into our system of district-based representation.

承认杰利洗涤这一现象的存在，凸显了这种连续性战略的潜在性质，从而丰富了现有的关于选区重划的讨论：杰利洗涤有利于当权者，然而，由于它们看起来比激进的重新设计方式更受限，因此赋予了它们合法的表象。但本文认为这种合法的表象并不能站得住脚。作为一个法律问题，维持选区核心和保护在位者的努力与对遵守传统地理分区原则的努力在立脚点上并不相同。而作为一个政策问题，杰利洗涤更有可能颠覆民主的核心价值，而非促进民主。本文得出至少两点重要的启示：首先，法院在审查对重划选区方案的异议，以及自己在重新划分选区时，都应该对连续性标准持有怀疑的态度。其次，更广泛地说，减少以前选区的遗留问题，有可能为我们按选区划分的代表制度注入健康的活力。

注释