Two weeks ago, I was sitting at the kitchen table with my wife Katya, and we were talking about what I was going to talk about today. We have an 11-year-old son; his name is Lincoln. He was sitting at the same table, doing his math homework. And during a pause in my conversation with Katya, I looked over at Lincoln and I was suddenly thunderstruck by a recollection of a client of mine.
Pre dve nedelje, sedeo sam za kuhinjskim stolom sa mojom ženom Katjom, i razgovarali smo na temu o kojoj ću pričati danas. Imamo 11-godišnjeg sina, zove se Linkoln. Sedeo je za istim stolom i radio domaći iz matematike. I tokom pauze u mom razgovoru sa Katjom, bacio sam pogled na Linkolna i kao da me je grom pogodio, setio sam se mog klijenta.
My client was a guy named Will. He was from North Texas. He never knew his father very well, because his father left his mom while she was pregnant with him. And so, he was destined to be raised by a single mom, which might have been all right except that this particular single mom was a paranoid schizophrenic, and when Will was five years old, she tried to kill him with a butcher knife.
Moj klijent je bio momak po imenu Vil. Poreklom iz severnog Teksasa. Nikada nije dobro poznavao svog oca, zato što je otac napustio njegovu majku dok je bila trudna s njim. I tako, suđeno mu je da ga odgaja samohrana majka, što bi možda i bilo u redu osim što je baš ova samohrana majka bila paranoidni šizofrenik, i kada je Vil imao pet godina, pokušala je da ga ubije mesarskim nožem.
She was taken away by authorities and placed in a psychiatric hospital, and so for the next several years Will lived with his older brother, until he committed suicide by shooting himself through the heart. And after that Will bounced around from one family member to another, until, by the time he was nine years old, he was essentially living on his own.
Nju su vlasti odvele i smestile u psihijatrijsku bolnicu, tako da je nekoliko narednih godina Vil živeo sa starijim bratom dok brat nije izvršio samoubistvo pucnjem u srce. I posle toga Vila su prebacivali od jednog do drugog člana porodice,
That morning that I was sitting with Katya and Lincoln, I looked at my son, and I realized that when my client, Will, was his age, he'd been living by himself for two years. Will eventually joined a gang and committed a number of very serious crimes, including, most seriously of all, a horrible, tragic murder. And Will was ultimately executed as punishment for that crime.
sve do njegove devete godine, kada je u suštini bio prepušten samom sebi. Tog jutra sam sedeo sa Katjom i Linkolnom i pogledao sam u svog sina, i shvatio da je moj klijent, Vil, bio njegovog uzrasta, i sam na ulici već dve godine. Vil se na kraju priključio bandi i počinio brojna teška krivična dela, uključujući, najozbiljnije od svih, užasno, tragično ubistvo. I Vil je na kraju pogubljen jer je to kazna za taj zločin.
But I don't want to talk today about the morality of capital punishment. I certainly think that my client shouldn't have been executed, but what I would like to do today instead is talk about the death penalty in a way I've never done before, in a way that is entirely noncontroversial.
Ali ja ne želim danas da pričam o moralnosti smrtne kazne. Svakako mislim da moj klijent nije trebalo da bude pogubljen, ali ono što želim da uradim danas umesto toga je da govorim o smrtnoj kazni na način na koji to nisam radio do sada, na način koji je potpuno nekontroverzan.
I think that's possible, because there is a corner of the death penalty debate -- maybe the most important corner -- where everybody agrees, where the most ardent death penalty supporters and the most vociferous abolitionists are on exactly the same page. That's the corner I want to explore.
Mislim da je to moguće, zato što postoji stanovište u raspravi o smrtnoj kazni - možda i najvažnije stanovište - sa kojim se svi slažu, gde i najzagriženiji pobornici smrtne kazne i najglasniji abolicionisti imaju iste stavove.
Before I do that, though, I want to spend a couple of minutes telling you how a death penalty case unfolds, and then I want to tell you two lessons that I have learned over the last 20 years as a death penalty lawyer from watching well more than a hundred cases unfold in this way.
To je stanovište koje želim da razradim. Ali pre nego što to uradim, želim da posvetim nekoliko minuta govoreći vam kako se slučaj smrtne kazne odvija, i onda ću vam ispričati dve lekcije koje sam naučio za poslednjih 20 godina, radeći kao specijalizovani advokat za slučajeve smrtne kazne, videvši više od stotinjak slučajeva koji su se odvijali na isti način.
You can think of a death penalty case as a story that has four chapters. The first chapter of every case is exactly the same, and it is tragic. It begins with the murder of an innocent human being, and it's followed by a trial where the murderer is convicted and sent to death row, and that death sentence is ultimately upheld by the state appellate court.
Možete zamisliti slučaj smrtne kazne kao priču sa četri poglavlja. Prvo poglavlje svakog slučaja je potpuno isto, i tragično je. Počinje ubistvom nedužnog ljudskog bića, iza koga sledi suđenje gde je ubica osuđen i poslat na izvršenje smrtne kazne, i ta smrtna kazna je na kraju potvrđena na državnom apelacionom sudu.
The second chapter consists of a complicated legal proceeding known as a state habeas corpus appeal. The third chapter is an even more complicated legal proceeding known as a federal habeas corpus proceeding. And the fourth chapter is one where a variety of things can happen. The lawyers might file a clemency petition, they might initiate even more complex litigation, or they might not do anything at all. But that fourth chapter always ends with an execution.
Drugo poglavlje je sastavljeno od pravnih radnji poznatih kao apelacija državi protiv utamničenja. Treće poglavlje je još komplikovanija pravna procedura, savezna procedura protiv utamničenja. I četvrto poglavlje je ono u kome se mogu desiti razne stvari. Advokat može podneti zahtev za pomilovanjem, mogu pokrenuti mnogo kompleksniji postupak, ili mogu da ne urade ništa od toga. Ali četvrto poglavlje uvek završava pogubljenjem.
When I started representing death row inmates more than 20 years ago, people on death row did not have a right to a lawyer in either the second or the fourth chapter of this story. They were on their own. In fact, it wasn't until the late 1980s that they acquired a right to a lawyer during the third chapter of the story. So what all of these death row inmates had to do was rely on volunteer lawyers to handle their legal proceedings. The problem is that there were way more guys on death row than there were lawyers who had both the interest and the expertise to work on these cases.
Kada sam pre više od 20 godina počeo da zastupam osuđene na smrtnu kaznu, zatvorenici nisu imali prava na advokata, ni u drugom, ni u četvrtom poglavlju ove priče. Prepušteni sami sebi. Činjenica je da ni do kraja 1980-ih nisu obezbedili pravo na advokata tokom trećeg poglavlja ove priče. Sve što su oni morali da urade je da se oslone na pravnike volontere da vode njihove pravne procedure. Problem je bio u tome da je bilo mnogo više smrtnih osuđenika nego što je bilo advokata koji su bili stručni i zainteresovani za ove slučajeve.
And so inevitably, lawyers drifted to cases that were already in chapter four -- that makes sense, of course. Those are the cases that are most urgent; those are the guys who are closest to being executed. Some of these lawyers were successful; they managed to get new trials for their clients. Others of them managed to extend the lives of their clients, sometimes by years, sometimes by months.
Neizbežno je bilo da avokati teže slučajevima koji su već bili u četvrtom poglavlju - to naravno ima smisla. To su najhitniji slučajevi, to su ljudi koji su najbliži pogubljenju. Neki od ovih advokata bili su uspešni - obezbedili su klijentima novo suđenje. Drugi su uspeli svojim klijentima da produže živote, nekad godinama, nekad mesecima.
But the one thing that didn't happen was that there was never a serious and sustained decline in the number of annual executions in Texas. In fact, as you can see from this graph, from the time that the Texas execution apparatus got efficient in the mid- to late 1990s, there have only been a couple of years where the number of annual executions dipped below 20.
Ali nije se desilo to da se ikada dogodio ozbiljan i stalan pad godišnjih pogubljenja u Teksasu. Zapravo, kao što možete videti sa grafikona, do vremena kada je mehanizam pogubljenja postao efikasan sredinom i kasnih 90-tih, postoji samo nekoliko godina gde je broj godišnjih pogubljenja pao ispod 20.
In a typical year in Texas, we're averaging about two people a month. In some years in Texas, we've executed close to 40 people, and this number has never significantly declined over the last 15 years. And yet, at the same time that we continue to execute about the same number of people every year, the number of people who we're sentencing to death on an annual basis has dropped rather steeply.
Tokom prosečne godine u Teksasu, imamo prosek od oko dvoje ljudi mesečno. Nekih godina u Teksasu je pogubljeno blizu 40 ljudi, i ovaj broj nikada nije značajno pao tokom proteklih 15 godina. Ipak, u isto vreme kada nastavljamo sa egzekucijama istog broja ljudi svake godine, broj ljudi koje osuđujemo na smrt na godišnjem nivou
So we have this paradox,
opao je značajno.
which is that the number of annual executions has remained high but the number of new death sentences has gone down. Why is that? It can't be attributed to a decline in the murder rate, because the murder rate has not declined nearly so steeply as the red line on that graph has gone down. What has happened instead is that juries have started to sentence more and more people to prison for the rest of their lives without the possibility of parole, rather than sending them to the execution chamber.
Imamo ovaj paradoks, a to je da je broj godišnjih pogubljenja ostao velik, ali se broj novih smrtnih kazni smanjio. Zašto se ovo dešava? To se ne može pripisati padu u stopi ubistava, jer stopa ubistava nije pala ni blizu kao što to pokazuje crvena linija na grafikonu. Zapravo se desilo to da su porote počele sve više ljudi da kažnjavaju zatvorom do kraja života, bez mogućnosti uslovne kazne, umesto da ih šalju na gubilište.
Why has that happened? It hasn't happened because of a dissolution of popular support for the death penalty. Death penalty opponents take great solace in the fact that death penalty support in Texas is at an all-time low. Do you know what all-time low in Texas means? It means that it's in the low 60 percent. Now, that's really good compared to the mid-1980s, when it was in excess of 80 percent, but we can't explain the decline in death sentences and the affinity for life without the possibility of parole by an erosion of support for the death penalty, because people still support the death penalty.
Zašto se to desilo? Nije se desilo zbog nedostatka podrške smrtnoj kazni. Protivnici smrtne kazne se teše činjenicom da je podrška smrtnoj kazni u Teksasu na nezapamćeno niskom nivou. Znate li šta to znači za Teksas? To znači da je oko 60 procenata. To je veoma dobro u poređenju sa 80-tima, kada je bila veća od 80 procenata, ali ne možemo objasniti smanjenje smrtnih kazni i afinitet za doživotnu kaznu bez uslovnog otpuštanja erozijom podrške za smrtnu kaznu, jer ljudi još podržavaju smrtnu kaznu.
What's happened to cause this phenomenon? What's happened is that lawyers who represent death row inmates have shifted their focus to earlier and earlier chapters of the death penalty story.
Zbog čega je nastala ova pojava? Desilo se to da su advokati koji zastupaju osuđenike na smrtnu kaznu promenili fokus na sve ranija poglavlja priče o smrtnoj kazni.
So 25 years ago, they focused on chapter four. And they went from chapter four 25 years ago to chapter three in the late 1980s. And they went from chapter three in the late 1980s to chapter two in the mid-1990s. And beginning in the mid- to late 1990s, they began to focus on chapter one of the story.
Pre 25 godina, fokusirali su se na četvrto poglavlje. Prešli su sa četvrtog poglavlja, pre 25 godina, na treće krajem 1980-tih. A sa trećeg poglavlja su krajem 1980-tih prešli na drugo, sredinom 1990-tih. A sredinom i krajem 1990-tih, počeli su da se fokusiraju na početak priče.
Now, you might think that this decline in death sentences and the increase in the number of life sentences is a good thing or a bad thing. I don't want to have a conversation about that today. All that I want to tell you is that the reason that this has happened is because death penalty lawyers have understood that the earlier you intervene in a case, the greater the likelihood that you're going to save your client's life. That's the first thing I've learned.
Možete misliti da je ovaj pad smrtnih kazni i povećanje broja doživotnih kazni dobra ili loša stvar. Danas ne želim da pričam o tome. Želim da vam kažem da je razlog zašto se ovo dogodilo taj što su advokati koji zastupaju smrtne osuđenike shvatili da što ranije se interveniše u slučaju, veće su šanse da ćete svom klijentu spasiti život. To je prva stvar koju sam naučio.
Here's the second thing I learned: My client Will was not the exception to the rule; he was the rule. I sometimes say, if you tell me the name of a death row inmate -- doesn't matter what state he's in, doesn't matter if I've ever met him before -- I'll write his biography for you. And eight out of 10 times, the details of that biography will be more or less accurate.
Evo i druge stvari koju sam naučio: Moj klijent, Vil nije bio izuzetak od pravila; on je bio pravilo. Ponekad kažem, ako mi date ime osuđenika na smrtnu kaznu, nema veze u kojoj je državi, bez obzira da li sam ga upoznao ili ne - napisaću njegovu biografiju za vas. I u osam od deset puta, detalji ove biografije
And the reason for that is that 80 percent of the people on death row are people who came from the same sort of dysfunctional family that Will did. Eighty percent of the people on death row are people who had exposure to the juvenile justice system. That's the second lesson that I've learned.
biće manje-više precizni. I razlog za to je to što su 80% osuđenika na smrt ljudi koji su potekli iz istih nefunkcionalnih porodica kao što je Vilova. 80% osuđenika na smrt su ljudi koji su bili unutar pravosudnog sistema za maloletničku delikvenciju. To je druga lekcija
Now we're right on the cusp of that corner
koju sam naučio.
where everybody's going to agree. People in this room might disagree about whether Will should have been executed, but I think everybody would agree that the best possible version of his story would be a story where no murder ever occurs. How do we do that?
Sada smo u centru tog stanovišta sa kojime će se svi složiti. Ljudi u ovoj prostoriji mogu da se ne slože oko toga da li bi Vila trebalo pogubiti, ali mislim da će se svi složiti da bi najbolja moguća verzija njegove priče bila priča gde se ubistvo nije desilo.
When our son Lincoln was working on that math problem two weeks ago,
Kako to da učinimo?
it was a big, gnarly problem. And he was learning how, when you have a big old gnarly problem, sometimes the solution is to slice it into smaller problems. That's what we do for most problems -- in math, in physics, even in social policy -- we slice them into smaller, more manageable problems. But every once in a while, as Dwight Eisenhower said, the way you solve a problem is to make it bigger.
Kada je naš sin Linkoln radio matematički problem pre dve nedelje, bio je to veliki, gadan problem. I on je sada naučio da kada imaš veliki problem, ponekad je put do rešenja podeliti ga na manje probleme. Tako rešavamo većinu problema - iz matematike i fizike, čak i iz socijalne politike - usitnimo ih u manje, lakše rešive probleme. Ali s vremena na vreme, kao što to reče Dvajt Ajzenhauer, način za rešavanje problema je da ga ukrupnite.
The way we solve this problem is to make the issue of the death penalty bigger. We have to say, all right. We have these four chapters of a death penalty story, but what happens before that story begins? How can we intervene in the life of a murderer before he's a murderer? What options do we have to nudge that person off of the path that is going to lead to a result that everybody -- death penalty supporters and death penalty opponents -- still think is a bad result: the murder of an innocent human being?
Način na koji bismo rešili ovaj problem je da pitanje smrtne kazne načinimo širim. Moramo reći, u redu. Imamo ova četri poglavlja priče o smrtnoj kazni, ali šta se dešavalo pre nego što je priča počela? Kako možemo intervenisati u životu ubice pre nego što postane ubica? Kakve opcije imamo da gurnemo tu osobu sa tog puta koji vodi ishodu za koji svi - oni koji su za i protiv smrtne kazne - još uvek misle da je loš rezultat: ubistvo nevinog čoveka.
You know, sometimes people say that something isn't rocket science. And by that, what they mean is rocket science is really complicated and this problem that we're talking about now is really simple. Well that's rocket science; that's the mathematical expression for the thrust created by a rocket. What we're talking about today is just as complicated. What we're talking about today is also rocket science.
Ljudi ponekad kažu da nešto nije viša matematika. Time se misli da je viša matematika veoma komplikovana i da je ovaj problem o kome pričamo prilično jednostavan. To je viša matematika: izraz koji se koristi za veoma teške probleme u matematici. Danas pričamo o nečemu što je jednako komplikovano. Ono o čemu danas pričamo
My client Will and 80 percent of the people on death row
je takođe viša matematika.
had five chapters in their lives that came before the four chapters of the death penalty story. I think of these five chapters as points of intervention, places in their lives when our society could've intervened in their lives and nudged them off of the path that they were on that created a consequence that we all -- death penalty supporters or death penalty opponents -- say was a bad result.
Moj klijent Vil i 80% ljudi osuđenih na smrt imali su pet poglavlja u svom životu koja su nastupila pre četiri poglavlja priče o smrtnoj kazni. Ovih pet poglavlja smatram tačkama za intervenciju, trenucimau njihovim životima kada je naše društvo moglo da interveniše i pogura ih sa staze na kojoj su bili, koja je dovela do posledica za koje svi - oni koji podržavaju ili koji su protiv smrtne kazne - mislimo da su loše.
Now, during each of these five chapters: when his mother was pregnant with him; in his early childhood years; when he was in elementary school; when he was in middle school and then high school; and when he was in the juvenile justice system -- during each of those five chapters, there were a wide variety of things that society could have done. In fact, if we just imagine that there are five different modes of intervention, the way that society could intervene in each of those five chapters, and we could mix and match them any way we want, there are 3,000 -- more than 3,000 -- possible strategies that we could embrace in order to nudge kids like Will off of the path that they're on.
Tokom svakog od ovih pet poglavlja, kada je majka bila trudna s njim, u njegovom ranom detinjstvu, kada je bio u osnovnoj školi, višim razredima osnovne i u srednjoj školi i kada je bio u sistemu popravnih domova - tokom svakog od ovih pet poglavlja, bilo je mnoštvo stvari koje je društvo moglo da uradi. Zapravo, ako samo zamislimo da postoji pet različitih modela intervencije, način na koji društvo može da interveniše u tih pet pogavlja, i možemo da ih kombinujemo i mešamo po volji, postoji 3000 - više od 3000 mogućih strategija kojima bismo klince poput Vila mogli da skrenemo sa njihove staze.
So I'm not standing here today with the solution. But the fact that we still have a lot to learn, that doesn't mean that we don't know a lot already. We know from experience in other states that there are a wide variety of modes of intervention that we could be using in Texas, and in every other state that isn't using them, in order to prevent a consequence that we all agree is bad.
Danas pred vama ne stojim sa rešenjem. Činjenica je da još uvek imamo dosta da učimo, ali to ne znači da već ne znamo dosta. Iz iskustva iz drugih država znamo da postoji širok dijapazon mera intervencije koje bismo mogli da koristimo u Teksasu i svim drugim državama koje ih ne koriste, kako bismo sprečili posledicu za koju se svi slažemo da je loša.
I'll just mention a few. I won't talk today about reforming the legal system. That's probably a topic that is best reserved for a room full of lawyers and judges. Instead, let me talk about a couple of modes of intervention that we can all help accomplish, because they are modes of intervention that will come about when legislators and policymakers, when taxpayers and citizens, agree that that's what we ought to be doing and that's how we ought to be spending our money.
Pomenuću samo nekoliko. Danas neću pričati o reformi pravnog sistema. To je verovatno tema koju treba ostaviti u prostoriji punoj advokata i sudija. Umesto toga, pričaću o nekoliko mera intervencije za koje svi možemo pomoći da se ostvare, jer su to mere intervencije koje će nastati kada se zakonodavci i političari, poreznici i građani slože da je to ono što treba da radimo i da tako treba da trošimo naš novac.
We could be providing early childhood care for economically disadvantaged and otherwise troubled kids, and we could be doing it for free. And we could be nudging kids like Will off of the path that we're on. There are other states that do that, but we don't.
Možemo pružati pomoć u ranom detinjstvu za ekonomski i drugačije ugroženu decu i to može biti besplatno. Možemo skretati klince poput Vila sa staze na kojoj su. Postoje druge države koje to rade, ali naša ne.
We could be providing special schools, at both the high school level and the middle school level, but even in K-5, that target economically and otherwise disadvantaged kids, and particularly kids who have had exposure to the juvenile justice system. There are a handful of states that do that; Texas doesn't.
Možemo da pružamo posebne škole, na nivou srednje škole i viših razreda osnovne, ali čak i u prvih pet razreda, koje su namenjene ekonomski i drugačije ugroženoj deci, i naročito deci koja su bila izložena kaznenom sistemu za maloletnike. Postoji nekolicina država koje ovo imaju -
There's one other thing we can be doing -- well, there are a bunch of other things --
ali ne i Teksas.
there's one other thing that I'm going to mention, and this is going to be the only controversial thing that I say today. We could be intervening much more aggressively into dangerously dysfunctional homes, and getting kids out of them before their moms pick up butcher knives and threaten to kill them. If we're going to do that, we need a place to put them.
Postoji još nešto što možemo da radimo - dosta stvari - jedna stvar koju ću pomenuti, a to će biti jedina kontroverzna stvar koju ću reći danas. Možemo intervenisati mnogo agresivnije u opasno nefunkcionalnim domovima i iz njih vaditi decu pre nego što njihove majke uzmu noževe i priprete da će ih ubiti. Ako uradimo to,
Even if we do all of those things, some kids are going to fall through the cracks and they're going to end up in that last chapter before the murder story begins, they're going to end up in the juvenile justice system. And even if that happens, it's not yet too late. There's still time to nudge them, if we think about nudging them rather than just punishing them.
potrebno nam je mesto za njih. Čak i da uradimo sve ovo, neka deca će nam promaći i završiće na tom poslednjem poglavlju pre nego počne priča s ubistvom, završiće u kaznenom sistemu za maloletnike. A čak i da se desi to, još uvek nije prekasno. Još ima vremena da ih poguramo, ako na to mislimo kao na guranje umesto proste kazne.
There are two professors in the Northeast -- one at Yale and one at Maryland -- they set up a school that is attached to a juvenile prison. And the kids are in prison, but they go to school from eight in the morning until four in the afternoon. Now, it was logistically difficult. They had to recruit teachers who wanted to teach inside a prison, they had to establish strict separation between the people who work at the school and the prison authorities, and most dauntingly of all, they needed to invent a new curriculum because you know what? People don't come into and out of prison on a semester basis.
Na severoistoku postoje dva profesora - jedan na Jejlu a drugi na Merilendu - osnovali su školu koja je pridružena zatvoru za maloletnike. Klinci su u zatvoru, ali idu u školu od osam ujutru do četiri popodne. To je bilo logistički teško. Morali su da regrutuju nastavnike koji su želeli da rade unutar zatvora, da ustanove strogo razdvajanje između ljudi koji rade u školi i osoblja u zatvoru, i najteže od svega, morali su da izmisle novi program nastave, jer pogodite šta? Ljudi ne dolaze u zatvor na polugodištima.
(Laughter)
But they did all those things.
Ali uradili su sve to.
Now, what do all of these things have in common? What all of these things have in common is that they cost money. Some of the people in the room might be old enough to remember the guy on the old oil filter commercial. He used to say, "Well, you can pay me now or you can pay me later." What we're doing in the death penalty system is we're paying later.
Šta je zajedničko svim ovim stvarima? Zajedničko im je da koštaju. Neki od vas su možda dovoljno stari da se sećaju tipa na staroj reklami za filtere za ulje. Rekao bi: "Možete mi platiti sada ili mi platiti kasnije." Ono što mi radimo u sistemu smrtnih kazni je plaćanje kasnije.
But the thing is that for every 15,000 dollars that we spend intervening in the lives of economically and otherwise disadvantaged kids in those earlier chapters, we save 80,000 dollars in crime-related costs down the road. Even if you don't agree that there's a moral imperative that we do it, it just makes economic sense.
Ali stvar je u tome da za svakih 15000 dolara koje potrošimo na intervencije u životima ekonomski i drugačije ugrožene dece u tim ranijim poglavljima, kasnije štedimo 80000 dolara u troškovima koji su vezani za kriminal. Čak i da se ne slažete da je moralna obaveza da to uradimo, ekonomski ima smisla.
I want to tell you about the last conversation that I had with Will. It was the day that he was going to be executed, and we were just talking. There was nothing left to do in his case. And we were talking about his life. And he was talking first about his dad, who he hardly knew, who had died, and then about his mom, who he did know, who was still alive.
Želim da vam ispričam o poslednjem razgovoru koji sam vodio s Vilom. To je bilo dana kad je trebalo da bude pogubljen i samo smo pričali. Nije ostalo ništa da se uradi u njegovom slučaju. I mi smo pričali o njegovom životu. I pričao je prvo o svom ocu, kojeg je jedva poznavao, koji je umro i potom o svojoj majci, koju je poznavao,
And I said to him, "I know the story. I've read the records. I know that she tried to kill you." I said, "But I've always wondered whether you really actually remember that." I said, "I don't remember anything from when I was five years old. Maybe you just remember somebody telling you."
i koja je još uvek živa. Rekao sam mu: "Znam priču. Čitao sam zapisnike. Znam da je pokušala da te ubije." I rekoh: "Uvek smo se pitali da li se zapravo sećaš toga." Rekoh: "Ja se ničega ne sećam iz perioda kada sam imao pet godina.
And he looked at me and he leaned forward, and he said, "Professor," -- he'd known me for 12 years, he still called me Professor. He said, "Professor, I don't mean any disrespect by this, but when your mama picks up a butcher knife that looks bigger than you are, and chases you through the house screaming she's going to kill you, and you have to lock yourself in the bathroom and lean against the door and holler for help until the police get there," he looked at me and he said, "that's something you don't forget."
Možda si se setio nečega što ti je neko prepričao." I pogledao me je nagnuvši se napred i reče: "Profesore," - poznavao me je 12 godina i još uvek me je zvao profesore. Rekao je: "Profesore, bez uvrede, ali kada tvoja mama uzme mesarski nož koji izgleda veći od tebe i juri te kroz kuću vičući da će da te ubije i moraš da se zaključaš u kupatilo i nasloniš na vrata i vičeš upomoć dok policija ne dođe," pogledao me je i rekao: "to je nešto što se ne zaboravlja."
I hope there's one thing you all won't forget: In between the time you arrived here this morning and the time we break for lunch, there are going to be four homicides in the United States. We're going to devote enormous social resources to punishing the people who commit those crimes, and that's appropriate because we should punish people who do bad things. But three of those crimes are preventable.
Nadam se da jedno nećete zaboraviti: od vremena kada ste jutros stigli ovde i do pauze za ručak, u SAD će se desiti četiri ubistva. Posvetićemo ogromne društvene resurse da kaznimo počinioce tih zločina, i to je u redu jer treba da kažnjavamo one koji čine loše stvari. Ali tri od navedenih zločina se mogu sprečiti.
If we make the picture bigger and devote our attention to the earlier chapters, then we're never going to write the first sentence that begins the death penalty story.
Ako sagledamo širu sliku i posvetimo pažnju ranijim poglavljima, tada nećemo nikada ispisati prvu rečenicu kojom započinje priča o smrtnoj kazni.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)