Luke Heimlich的新聞只有這樣而已嗎？ - 棒球

http://angrybeavs.com/baseball/13815

WAS THE NYT ARTICLE ON LUKE HEIMLICH “ALL THE NEWS THAT’S FIT TO PRINT”?

華盛頓的一位律師寫的 可以看看 我翻譯的

Any writer taking on the subject of writing about Luke Heimlich other than
just his baseball skills, ought to have at least a rudimentary understanding
of Washington state law, specifically its Juvenile Justice Act (JJA) as it
would relate to a juvenile charged with a sex offense, the 2016 US Department
of Education report (“Beyond the Box”), and the Caldwell Study Sex Offense
Registration and Related Laws: Treating Youth Fairly, National Juvenile
Justice Network, 2016 before undertaking an attempt to write about, let alone
formulate an opinion about, this complex case.

任何撰寫Luke Heimlich的新聞報導，只要是棒球以外的事情(意旨性侵案)
，應該最少要有華盛頓州法的基本常識。尤其是它的兒童少年法。因為這整個案件與一位
被以性侵犯的罪名起訴的少年；與「2016美國教育報告書」、「Caldwell性犯罪及
其法律：合理的對待少年」以及「國家少年法2016」等皆有關，因此這些都要了解才可以
撰述這個棘手的案子，更別說是發表意見了。

Curiously, the NYT article was completely devoid of any content of these
extremely relevant subject areas. The article was simply a regurgitation of
old news made worse by the fact there was no reference to the WA JJA, the DOE
report or the Caldwell study. The most important news to print wasn’t
printed at all.

但有趣的是，紐約時報卻完全沒沾到任何極度相關的報告書。該文章完全只
用了一個舊聞使用的不完全的報導，而且還完全沒有任何上述的報導。最重要的時報
，卻印了完全沒重點的東西。

Washington Law: First of all, Mr. Heimlich’s record is SEALED by Court
Order. Once sealed, the effect is that the proceedings in the case shall be
treated as if they never occurred. Thereafter, the subject (Mr. Heimlich)
may reply accordingly about the events and records that are sealed. See RCW
13.50.260(6)(a).

華盛頓州的法表示：首先，這位Heimlich的案子是被法院命令塵封。一旦
法案被塵封，效力為--這個案子的所有流程應該被看待為：從來沒有發生過。因此，
Heimlich可以根據這個法案表示該事件以及該紀錄都已經消除了。(RCW13.50.260(6)(a))


Our state constitution guarantees jury trials in criminal prosecutions and
this right to a trial by jury shall remain inviolate. We have a separate
system for dealing with juveniles accused of committing offenses and they are
not afforded jury trials. According to our Supreme Court, Washington has been
avoiding accusing and convicting juveniles of crimes for more than 100 years.

我們的州法在刑法案件中，陪審團制度是存在的，並且陪審團的判決應該
是不被侵犯的。我們對少年被起訴的案件是分開的，他們不需要被陪審團判決。根據最高
法院，華盛頓州已經超過100年沒有起訴並定罪少年了。

Under the Juvenile code “An order of court adjudging a child a juvenile
offender or dependent under the provisions of this chapter shall in no case
be deemed a conviction of crime.” RCW 13.04.240. Our Supreme Court has
written: Thus, “An act which would be a crime if committed by an adult is
not a crime, and thus not a felony, if committed by a juvenile.” We treat
youth here in Washington differently than adults charged with the same
offense. We use a completely different vernacular. Our Juvenile Justice Act
operates under the philosophy to rehabilitate, correct and direct errant
youth. It appears Mr. Heimlich did not require much redirection. We don’t
rehabilitate youth to 95% and say “you may now resume your pursuit of life,
liberty & happiness. Oh, except you can’t play professional baseball.
Sorry.” If that were the case, what else couldn’t he do? Where would you
draw the line in the sand?

根據少年法，審理少年或是法定受撫養人之案件，不應該被視為犯罪。這是
來自RCW 13.04.240的法條表示的。我們的最高法院表示：因此「任何成人犯的罪，即使
是重罪，都不會對小孩來說是犯罪。」我們對青少年跟對成人不同。我們使用完全不同的
系統。我們的兒童少年法是在幫助他們改正、導正並且指引的想法下施行的。很顯然的，
Heimlich不需要太多的重新改正。他仍然追求棒球。我們不會在幫助一位少年到95%時跟
他說「OKOK你現在可以重新追求你的人生、自由以及快樂的目標了，喔喔，拍寫，忘了說
只是你以後不能打職業棒球惹。」如果是這樣，他還有什麼不能做，大家對他的畫線是畫
到哪裡？

The reason our Supreme Court denies juveniles the right to a jury trial lies
in the distinction between the adult and juvenile systems. It is the
rehabilitative purposes and lesser penalties of the JJA which stand in
contrast to the punitive purposes and much more serious penalties of the
adult criminal system. It is the nature of the penalty, not the criminal act
committed that distinguishes the juvenile from the adult system. Our Supreme
Court has written in justification of the denial of jury trials to juveniles
as follows:

我們的最高法院拒絕少年被陪審團判決的原因在於少年跟成人的差別。兒少法
是為了追求改正引導的目標，並且減輕其犯罪處分而存在的。而成人的法比較著重在判刑
啦、處分等。這兩者是完全相反的。並不是犯罪的內容，而是處分的生態差異，使得少年
犯罪跟成人犯罪有所差別。我們的最高法院也寫了這樣的話：

The purpose of the juvenile justice system is ostensibly to establish a
system of having primary responsibility for, and responding to, the needs of
offenders, as well as to hold juveniles responsible for their offenses. The
critical distinction between the two systems lies in the Juvenile Justice Act
of 1997’s (JJA) policy of responding to the needs of juvenile offenders. We
have in the past found such a policy as rehabilitative in nature, whereas the
criminal system is punitive. Such difference has led us to consistently
conclude the right to jury trial does not extend to juveniles adjudicated in
juvenile proceedings.

少年司法系統會存在，就是希望建立一個系統能夠負責並回應這些犯罪者的需
求等，此外也讓這些少年為自己做的事情負責。少年跟成人犯罪的差異在1997年的兒少法
規定需要回應這些少年犯的需求就有所規範。我們在過去制定了導正少年的法，而刑法
制度上是相當具有懲罰性的。如此的差異讓我們一致性的認為陪審團制度不應該延續到少
年的犯罪案件上。

This highlights the complexities an accused juvenile faces. Especially in
cases involving allegations of sexual abuse where the evidence is nothing
more than “he said” “she said.” The principle function of a jury is to
find facts, not determine punishment. Our Supreme courts answer to this is,
if a juvenile wants a jury trial, then they can decline Juvenile court
jurisdiction and be tried as an adult. The trouble with this is if convicted,
one would face the consequences an adult would receive.

這些重點讓被指控的少年面對的事情複雜許多。特別是有關"性"的案件。因為
證據永遠只有那些各說各話的語句而已。陪審團的工作應該是找到事實，而不是決定刑期
。我們的最高法院的答案是：如果少年想要有陪審團制度，他們可以拒絕少年法院判決，
並且被以成人的方式對待。這樣麻煩的地方是，如果被定罪，他們會被判跟成人一樣的刑期
。





閱讀到這邊辛苦惹

接下來，算是這篇文章想表達Luke Heimlich案件的重點







This further complicates the difficulties of a 15 year old accused of a sex
offense faces. Although the standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt is
the same in an adult criminal proceeding as in a juvenile offender
proceeding, it is not the same standard of proof. Who would you want to
decide your fate? A jury of one judicial officer wearing a black robe or a
jury of 12 of your peers who must be unanimous in their decision?

這樣子，使得這位15歲被指控性侵害的少年更加麻煩了。即使成人犯罪跟少年
犯罪的證據表面上一定要是標準一致，但實際上不然。你想要誰來決定你的人生？
一個穿著黑衣袍的法官，還是12個一致意見的你的同儕？

So yes, youth do often plead guilty to things they didn’t do to avoid likely
much worse consequences. And yes, false accusations exist. The Department of
Education report references plea bargains and collateral consequences for
anyone who would care to read the report.

所以，少年很常對自己沒做的事情認罪協商，以避免更嚴重的後果。沒錯。
錯誤指控是存在的。教育部門的報告書希望那些願意看報告的人，能多花點時間了解並且
改變自己的看法。

Beyond the Box: Finally, this notion that Luke Heimlich is “controversial”
needs to be put to rest. He is just one of thousands of youth across this
country who have been involved with the justice system. I’ve already
answered the question of whether or not he’s “paid his debt” above.
However, I can’t ignore this quote from Judge Sterling Johnson, Jr. from the
Eastern District of the United States District Court of New York speaking at
a national summit on lowering barriers of access of adult ex convicts to
housing, securing public benefits, employment, etc. “If you borrow money
from a bank and you pay it off, your debt is forgiven. If you get convicted
of a crime in the criminal justice system, be it federal or state, you pay
for the rest of your life.” With understanding and a little compassion, it’
s time to turn the tide.

Beyond the Box：「Luke Heimlich是位爭議人士」這個想法應該被消除。
他只是那數千個在各州跑來跑去，卻有扯進司法系統的孩子之一。我已經回答他是否
受了他應受的懲罰了。但大家不能忽視Sterling Johnson，紐約的一位法官在高峰會說的
「如果你跟銀行借錢，你還錢了，那你的債還清了。但是如果你被司法系統定罪了，不管
是聯邦法院或是州法院，你永遠還不清你的債了。」是時候改變情勢了。

The best advice I could glean from the DOE report regarding admissions
counselors making decisions to admit a justice involved individual for
enrollment in their institution was this quote from p.28 of the report: “
Perhaps the most powerful tool an admissions counselor or officer can have is
the ability to use his or her own human experience in assessing the person
behind the paper. Institutions should seek to create an admissions process
that respects human dignity and is fair and equitable by design.” Why shouldn
’t this also be true for landlords considering an applicant for housing, or
an applicant for employment, i.e. major league baseball?

我從DOE裡面能看到的最好建議就是裡面第28頁寫的：「也許一個招生的
面試官應該要從他面對面得到的印象評分。機構應該要以最公平，也最尊重該面試者的
方式評斷一個人。」為何房東找房客時不是這樣？為何MLB不是這樣？

This is the second article I have tendered for public consideration regarding
the Heimlich case. Though I have been happy to provide my thinking as a kind
of amicus curiae (friend of the court of public opinion) it is truly
unfortunate that OSU, other than Coach Casey, has failed to offer such
information or the full range of support that Mr. Heimlich deserves as a
student athlete especially in light of their newly announced policy
increasing their commitment to student success. There was so much more that
was fit to print.

這是我投書有關Heimlich案件的第二篇文章了。雖然我很開心可以以法庭之
友的腳色提供我的想法，但OSU大學的教練Casy等其他人無法提供支援，讓Heimlich跟其
他學生運動員一樣得到他該得的，尤其最近他們學校優惠球員的政策讓學生更能夠向上競
爭。可以說的實在比能夠在報紙上刊登的，多太多了。




--

這篇很明顯是在幫Luke講話~
我就不表示意見了

--

--