So, imagine that you take a 19-hour, very long drive to Disney World, with two kids in the back seat. And 15 minutes into this 19-hour trip, the immutable laws of nature dictate that you get the question: "Are we there yet?"
想像一下, 你開了 19 個小時的超長車程 去迪士尼樂園。 你的兩個孩子坐在後座。 在這 19 小時車程 開始的 15 分鐘左右, 很自然地, 你聽到孩子問: 「到了沒?」
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
So you answer this question a hundred more times, easily, in the negative, but you finally arrive. You have a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful trip. You drive 19 long hours back home. And when you get there, the police are waiting on you. They accuse you of committing a crime that occurred while you were away in Florida. You tell anybody and everybody who will listen, "I didn't do it! I couldn't have done it! I was hanging out with Mickey and Minnie and my kids!" But no one believes you. Ultimately, you're arrested, you're tried, you're convicted and you are sentenced. And you spend 25 years in jail, until someone comes along and proves -- has the evidence to prove -- that you actually were in Florida when this crime was committed. So.
你還要回答這個問題至少一百次, 且答案都是否定的。 你終於到了。 這個旅遊非常非常非常棒。 你再開了 19 小時的車回家。 當你回到家, 警察在等著你。 他們指控你犯了一項罪行, 案發時間是你遠在佛羅里達的時候。 你對所有肯聽的人說, 「不是我做的! 不可能是我做的! 我當時和米奇、米妮 及我的孩子在一起啊!」 但沒人相信你。 最終,你被逮捕了, 你受了審判, 你被定了罪, 然後你被判了刑。 你在牢裡待了 25 年, 直到有人出現並證明—— 有證據可以證明—— 其實當犯罪發生時, 你人在佛羅里達。 各位,
So, I'm a Harvard Law professor, and the last several years, I have worked on winning the release of innocent people who've been wrongfully convicted -- people like Jonathan Fleming, who spent 24 years, eight months in jail for a murder that was committed in Brooklyn, New York, while he was in Disney World with his kids. How do we know this? Because when he was arrested, among his property in his back pocket was a receipt -- time-stamped receipt that showed that he was in Disney World. That receipt was put in the police file, a copy of it was put in the prosecutor's file, and they never gave it to his public defender. In fact, nobody even knew it was there. It just sat there for 20-some-odd years. My team looked through the file, and we found it, did the rest of the investigation, and figured out someone else committed the crime. Mr. Fleming was in Disney World, and he is now released.
我是哈佛的法律教授, 在過去幾年,我致力於 成功地釋放無辜的人, 他們被誤判而定罪—— 像是強納森·佛萊明, 他坐了 24 年又 8 個月的牢, 只因為一件在紐約 布魯克林犯下的謀殺案, 而當時他與孩子在迪士尼樂園, 我們怎麼知道? 因為當他被逮捕的時候, 他後口袋裡的東西中, 有一張收據—— 蓋有時間戳印的收據, 顯示他當時在迪士尼樂園。 那張收據被放入警方的檔案中, 一份複本被放在檢察官的檔案中, 但他們始終沒有將它 給予他的公設辯護人。 事實上,甚至沒人知道它存在。 它就被放在那兒二十多年。 我的團隊在檔案中尋找, 我們找到了它。 我們做了剩下的相關調查, 認為是其他人犯下那個罪行。 佛萊明先生那時確實在迪士尼樂園, 他現在已被釋放。
Let me give you a little bit of context. So about three years ago, I got a call from the Brooklyn District Attorney. He asked whether I'd be interested in designing a program called a "conviction review unit." So I said yes. A conviction review unit is essentially a unit in a prosecutor's office where prosecutors look at their past cases to determine whether or not they made mistakes. Over the course of the first year, we found about 13 wrongful convictions, people having been in jail for decades, and we released all of them. It was the most in New York history. The program is still going on, and they're up to 21 releases now -- 21 people who spent significant time behind bars.
讓我為各位說明一下背景。 約三年前,我接到一通來自 布魯克林區的地區檢察官的電話。 他問我是否有興趣設計一個專案, 叫做「定罪複審單位」。 我說好。 定罪複審單位在本質上是 檢察官辦公室底下的一個單位, 在這個單位,檢察官會 審查他們過去的案件, 以判定他們當時是否犯了錯誤。 在第一年, 我們找到了大約 13 件 誤判的案件, 這些被誤判的人 在監獄被關了數十年, 我們把他們全釋放了。 這是紐約史上的最高記錄。 這個專案仍在運作, 目前已經協助釋放了 21 人—— 21 個人在牢裡蹲了相當長的時間。
So let me tell you about a couple other of the men and women that I interacted with in the course of this program. One name is Roger Logan. Mr. Logan had been in jail 17 years and wrote me a letter. It was a simple letter; it basically said, "Professor Sullivan, I'm innocent. I've been framed. Can you look at my case?" At first blush, the case seemed like it was open and shut, but my research had shown that single-witness identification cases are prone to error. It doesn't mean he was innocent, it just means we ought to look a little bit closer at those cases.
讓我告訴各位另外兩件, 與我參與專案過程中 互動過的當事人有關。 有一位的名字叫羅傑·羅根。 羅根先生那時已經坐了 17 年牢, 他寫了封信給我。 信寫得很簡單;基本上,他說: 「蘇利文教授, 我是無辜的,我被陷害了。 你能否看看我的案件?」 乍看之下,這個案件似乎沒有疑點。 但我做過的研究顯示, 由單一證人指證的案件 誤判的可能性很大。 這不表示他是無辜的, 只表示我們應該要 更仔細一點看那類案件。
So we did. And the facts were relatively simple. The eyewitness said she heard a shot, and she ran to the next building and turned around and looked, and there was Mr. Logan. And he was tried and convicted and in jail for 17-some-odd years. But it was a single-witness case, so we took a look at it. I sent some people to the scene, and there was an inconsistency. And to put it politely: Usain Bolt couldn't have run from where she said she was to the other spot. Right? So we knew that wasn't true. So it still didn't mean that he didn't do it, but we knew something was maybe fishy about this witness. So we looked through the file, a piece of paper in the file had a number on it. The number indicated that this witness had a record. We went back through 20 years of non-digitized papers to figure out what this record was about, and it turned out -- it turned out -- the eyewitness was in jail when she said she saw what she saw. The man spent 17 years behind bars.
我們的確這樣做了。 事實相當簡單。 目擊證人說她聽到槍聲, 她跑到隔壁大樓,轉過身一看, 看到羅根先生。 他被審判並定罪, 在監獄待了 17 年以上。 這是單一證人的案件, 所以我們仔細地去看。 我們派了一些人到現場, 發現了不一致的地方。 用禮貌的說詞: 烏珊柏特不可能從她聲稱的所在地 跑到另一點去。 對嗎? 所以我們知道那不是真的。 但這仍然不意味著他沒有犯案, 但我們知道這個證人 有些可疑的地方。 所以我們仔細地看了檔案, 在檔案中有一張紙,上面有個數字。 這個數字顯示這個證人有記錄在案。 我們找遍了 20 年份且 沒有電子化的紙本資料, 想找出這個記錄的內容是什麼, 結果發現,結果發現, 當目擊證人說她看到那些事的時候, 她其實在牢裡。 這個男人坐了 17 年牢。
The last one is a case about two boys, Willie Stuckey, David McCallum. They were arrested at 15, and their conviction was vacated 29 years later. Now this was a case, once again -- first blush, it looked open and shut. They had confessed. But my research showed that juvenile confessions without a parent present are prone to error. The DNA cases proved this several times.
最後一個案件與兩個男孩有關, 威利史塔奇、大衛麥卡倫。 他們 15 歲時被捕, 他們的定罪在 29 年後被撤消。 這個案件, 同樣地,乍看之下似乎簡單明白, 他們認罪了。 但我的研究顯示,少年在自白時, 若沒有父母陪同, 經常有錯誤。 許多案件以 DNA 證明了這一點。
So we took a close look. We looked at the confession, and it turned out, there was something in the confession that those boys could not have known. The only people who knew it were police and prosecutors. We knew what really happened; someone told them to say this. We don't exactly know who, which person did, but any rate, the confession was coerced, we determined. We then went back and did forensics and did a fulsome investigation and found that two other, much older, different heights, different hairstyle, two other people committed the crime, not these two boys.
所以我們仔細去看。 我們看了自白, 結果發現, 在自白中有些內容 是那些男孩不可能知道的。 唯一知道的人是警察和檢察官。 我們知道真正發生了什麼事; 有人叫他們這樣說的。 我們並不知道是誰, 是誰這麼做, 但不論如何, 他們的自白都是被強迫的, 我們這樣判斷。 我們接著回去做法醫鑒定, 我們做了全面調查, 發現有另外兩個人, 年齡他們大一些, 不同身高,不同髮型, 這兩個人犯下了罪行, 而非那兩個男孩。
I actually went to court that day, for what's called a "vacatur hearing," where the conviction is thrown out. I went to court; I wanted to see Mr. McCallum walk out of there. So I went to court, and the judge said something that judges say all the time, but this took on a really special meaning. He looked up after the arguments and said, "Mr. McCallum," he said five beautiful words: "You are free to go." Can you imagine? After just about 30 years: "You are free to go." And he walked out of that courtroom.
我那天去了法庭一趟, 去參加所謂的「撤消聽證會」, 在那裡,這項定罪被否決。 我去了法庭;我想要看看 麥卡倫先生走出那裡。 所以我去了法庭, 法官說了些法官總是會說的話, 但這次的意義很特別。 在聽了辯論之後,法官抬起頭,說: 「麥卡倫先生,」 他說了五個美好的字: 「你可以自由離開了。」 (註:英文原文是五個字) 你們能想像嗎? 大約 30 年後, 「你可以自由離開了。」 他走出了那間法庭。
Unfortunately, his codefendant, Mr. Stuckey, didn't get the benefit of that. You see, Mr. Stuckey died in prison at 34 years old, and his mother sat at counsel table in his place. I'll never forget this the rest of my life. She just rocked at the table, saying, "I knew my baby didn't do this. I knew my baby didn't do this." And her baby didn't do this. Two other guys did it.
不幸的是, 他的共同被告,史塔奇先生, 沒有得到這樣的好處。 史塔奇先生在獄中過世了, 享年 34 歲。 他的母親代替他坐在律師桌前。 我一生都不會忘記這一景。 她只是搖動著桌子,說: 「我知道不是我的寶貝做的。 我知道不是我的寶貝做的。」 的確不是她的寶貝做的。 另外兩個人做的。
If there's anything that we've learned, anything that I've learned, with this conviction integrity work, it's that justice doesn't happen. People make justice happen. Justice is not a thing that just descends from above and makes everything right. If it did, Mr. Stuckey wouldn't have died in prison. Justice is something that people of goodwill make happen. Justice is a decision. Justice is a decision. We make justice happen.
如果我們有學到任何事, 如果我有學到任何事, 從這份確認定罪工作中學到的, 那就是:正義並不會自動發生。 是「人」讓正義發生的。 正義不會自動從天而降, 解決一切問題。 如果是這樣,史塔奇先生 就不會死在獄中了。 正義,是有善意的人 努力去讓它發生的。 正義是一個決定。 正義是一個決定。 我們使正義發生。
You know, the scary thing is, in each of these three cases I described, it would have only taken just an extra minute -- an extra minute -- for someone to look through the file and find this receipt. Just one -- to look through the file, find the receipt, give it to the public defender. It would have taken someone just a minute to look at the video confession and say, "That cannot be." Just a minute. And perhaps Mr. Stuckey would be alive today.
可怕的是, 在我前述的三個案件中, 都只需要多花一分鐘的時間, 多花一分鐘的時間, 只要有人去看過檔案, 找到收據。 只要一分鐘—— 去看過檔案,找到收據, 把它拿給公設辯護人。 只要有個人願花一分鐘, 去看自白影片, 並說:「不可能這樣。」 只要一分鐘。 也許史塔奇先生現在可能還活著。
It reminds me of one of my favorite poems. It's a poem that Benjamin Elijah Mays would always recite, and he called it "God's Minute." And it goes something like this: "I have only just a minute, only 60 seconds in it, forced upon me, can't refuse it, didn't seek it, didn't choose it. But it's up to me to use it. I must suffer if I lose it, give account if I abuse it. Just a tiny little minute, but eternity is in it."
這讓我想起我最愛的詩之一。 它是班傑明·以利亞·梅斯 經常背誦的一首詩。 他稱之為「神的一分鐘。」 內容是像這樣的: 「我只有一分鐘, 那分鐘裡只有六十秒, 那是我被強迫給的,我無法拒絕它, 我沒有去尋求它、沒有選擇它。 但我可以決定怎麼用它。 如果我失去它,我得要受苦; 如果我濫用它,我必須要說明。 只是短短的一分鐘, 但永恆就在其中。」
If I were to charge each and every one of us, I would want to say something like, "Every day, every day, take just one extra minute and do some justice. You don't have to -- I mean, some people spend their careers and their lives, like public defenders, doing justice every day. But in your professional lives, whatever you do, take time out to just do some justice. Make a colleague feel better. If you hear something that's sexist, don't laugh, speak up. If someone is down, lift them up, one extra minute each day, and it'll be a great, great place.
如果我要囑咐 我們每一個人, 我會想說這樣的話: 「每天, 每天, 多花一分鐘的時間, 來伸張一些正義。 你並不需要—— 像有些人投入他們的職涯以及一生, 就像公設辯護人, 每天都在伸張正義。 但在你的職業生活中, 不論是什麼職業, 暫停一下, 就只要… 伸張一些正義。 讓一個同事感覺好一點。 如果你聽到性別歧視的話語, 別笑,說出來。 如果有人很消沉,協助他振作, 一天花一分鐘就好, 就能創造出一個很棒很棒的地方。
I want to show you something. Now, above me is a picture of David McCallum. This is the day he was released from prison. After 30 years, he got to hug a niece he had never been able to touch before. And I asked him then, I said, "What's the first thing you want to do?" And he said, "I just want to walk on the sidewalk without anybody telling me where to go." Wasn't bitter, just wanted to walk on the sidewalk.
我想讓各位看一樣東西。 我上面這裡有一張照片, 那是大衛·麥卡倫。 這是他被從監獄釋放的那一天。 30 年後,他得以擁抱他的姪女, 他以前連碰觸到她的機會都沒有。 我那時問他: 「你想做的第一件事是什麼?」 他說:「我只想在人行道上走走, 而沒有人告訴我應該去哪裡。」 他沒懷恨, 只是想在人行道上走走。
I spoke to Mr. McCallum about two weeks ago. I went to New York. It was on the two-year anniversary of his release. And we talked, we laughed, we hugged, we cried. And he's doing quite well. And one of the things he said when we met with him is that he now has dedicated his life and his career to ensuring that nobody else is locked up unjustly.
大約兩週前我和麥卡倫先生談過話。 我去了紐約。 那是他被釋放的 兩週年紀念。 我們聊了, 我們笑了,我們擁抱了,我們哭了。 他的狀況很好。 見面時他說的其中一句話是: 現在他已投入他的人生、 及他的職涯, 來確保沒有其他人 會被不正義地關起來。
Justice, my friends, is a decision.
各位朋友,正義 是一個決定。
Thank you very much.
非常謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)