第三只眼看法制英译文：
8月15日上传 每周一更新 "Third Eye reads for the bar" (Part 7)
--- Law and Order: Viewed from outsider
For those wrong case above-mentioned, viewpoint me, those cases were been made a mistake in a link of "(law)Truth's Confirmation"!!! --- either prosecutors give a wrong "Evidence", or law-officers make a wrong judgment. Maybe in their mind of "Law Operate System", the actor of "Judge or Court" is just a part of "Law Operate System", a actor making short shrift perfunctorily.
I think, the true axiom of judicature is: "(law)Truth's Confirmation" is the immediate and conclusive base of "Law Adjudgement" rather than "Evidence's Confirmation". It goes without saying. Although "Evidence" can impress "Truth's Confirmation" carrying more weight, "Evidence" is not all of the ways of "Truth's Confirmation" --- expand on above-mentioned.
So with the academic precise logic on those unjust falsely and wrong cases, as a ruling-er there and then, the Court must shoulder the responsibility of the first and the best for those --- No shiftting off.
(Continue Weekly)
writer/tanweekly
2005.8.15 translate
Haikou China
------------------------------------------------
A murmur in a whisper
likes the voice of ghost with deep-rooted
keep shady under my body ,
Is it mine like mine ? ...... It is its like mine !
They can see around faces which I see share my eyes,
they can listen around talks which I listen share my ears,
they can know all my acts which I think about share my head !
writer/transparent-man: a single-acting telepathy man
excerpt from <<Nowadays Wizard Experience --- a recourse of transparent-man>>, which has been post to The State Council of China, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Chinese Central Television etc for statement and confirmation
原文：
对于最近几起的“冤案错案”来说，就我个人看来，司法判案人员主要是在“事实的论定”环节出了错！！！（不管是由于检控方提供了误导的证据，或是本身判断错误）他们往往根据检查院所提交的“证据”，直接就套用相关适用法律条文，并加以简单化的、机械化的、教条化的“判决”，根本就没有经过法院的自身独立的“事实（再）论定”——指相对于检查院的“事实论定”——可能在他们原先的法律操作理念中，法官或法院的角色只是司法运转体系中，一个“形式上”的过渡，其自身的职能操作更偏向于“僵化的”“教条化的”规则之度身定作。
但正如我前文所述，司法判案的真正的前置公理：是由“（法律）事实的论定”来作为“法律判决”的直接且决定性的依据，而不是由“证据”来主导“法律判决”的基本方向。我想这一点是“不言而喻”的，虽然，“证据论”在传统的法律思维取向中，占据着“潜移默化”的常态性的地位，但真正的、逻辑的法律思维却更偏向于“由（法律）事实来作为判决的直接依据，而不是证据”。“证据”虽然能极大程度上推动“事实的论定”，但“证据”并不能涵盖“事实论定”的全部途径。
“事实的论定真伪”远比“证据的论定真伪”更重要，在法律实务操作层次上也更高，更广泛。而且，从部门职权划分来看，“证据的论定真伪”一般是由检控方负责的，而“事实的论定真伪”则是由法院方负责的。因此，从理论上更严谨的角度说，对于那些“冤案错案”，法院方作为当事的裁定判决者，负有直接的、不可推卸的“第一”责任！！！。。。（待续）
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
“耳边轻轻地窃窃私语，犹如心底深处恶魔般的声音
好像是自己的声音，其实却是别人的声音。”
“他们通过我的眼睛，能看到周围人的面孔
他们通过我的耳朵，能听到周围人的声音
他们通过我的大脑，能轻松地预知下一步我想要做什么”
文／透明人——即一个具有“单向心电感应”（single-acting telepathy）的人
摘自资料《现代种盎历程——一个透明人的求助》，曾寄送国务院、中国科学院、中央电视台等相关机构以作说明（及确认）
8月8日上传 每周一更新 "Third Eye reads for the bar" (Part 6)
--- Law and Order: Viewed from outsider
Althought the word of "Truth's Confirmation" has also been written on the legal papers, it has never been put in the Law Studying or Law Act as a key link of best important and pivotal.
"Truth's Confirmation" become a exceeding link in Court Judgement even than "Evidence's confirmation", not only for the pure Law Logic, but also for the realistic need which can mark the boundaries of responsibility in the each link of Law Proc.
Recently at China some news of unjust falsely and wrong cases have been aired and aired. "Where the wrong links in those cases?" --- Not according as the footing of morals and public voice, just according as the judgment with professional and academic --- it still has trouble problems in head. Maybe the court officials of those cases hold the view that the "EVIDENCE" of prosecutors sent in is wrong. Apparently they think it is not their problems, and not need to learn a lesson from these. After all the traditional law logic (at China) place emphasis on "Human Testimony and Material Evidence" rigidify and doctrinal. The straight logic is: As soon as the "Human Testimony(Evidence) and Material Evidence" OK, the case is OK faultlessly.
It is a matter of course that those court officials will pass the mark with work misplay with Chinese Color, and not scaning which link of prefessional proc wrong by prefessional attitude, if the cases of this sort real reverse a verdict later on ... Maybe from a master eye, it is nuclear fact that Real Chinese Trouble is far from a problem of "Prefessional" ... Perhaps it is right, but I still have a unsure thought that on macro-level it is difficult let the country moved a major step, but on micro-level it is responsibility let the prefessional domain moved a half step by those enterprising prefessional. "Get a walk, start from a half step".
(Continue Weekly)
writer/tanweekly
2005.8.8 translate
Haikou China
------------------------------------------------
A murmur in a whisper
likes the voice of ghost with deep-rooted
keep shady under my body ,
Is it mine like mine ? ...... It is its like mine !
They can see around faces which I see share my eyes,
they can listen around talks which I listen share my ears,
they can know all my acts which I think about share my head !
writer/transparent-man: a single-acting telepathy man
excerpt from <<Nowadays Wizard Experience --- a recourse of transparent-man>>, which has been post to The State Council of China, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Chinese Central Television etc for statement and confirmation
原文：
虽然，法律标准文书中也有“事实认定”等字眼，但无论在司法实践或法律教学中，却都没有把它放到“法律审判”中“关键的”“极其重要的”环节来对待。（。。。）如前文的论述，“事实的论定（界定）”由“证明”“确认”及“认定”三条途径实现，从现实操作及纯学理推演上看，绝大部分的“误判可能风险”来源于较为主观的“认定”，毕竟前两点与之相较还是较为“客观”的。关于“认定”的详细析解，有可能的话，我会在它文试述。
再延续原来文字的思路：“事实的论定”之所以在审判全过程中具有“举足轻重”的地位，甚至更甚于“证据的确凿”，不仅由于纯学理演绎上的“需要”（这以后会详细全方位扩展论述），而且在具体现实操作上，也可更明晰地梳理清法律审理各阶段的“各个责任”。就以最近这阶段沸沸扬扬的被媒体暴炒的几起“冤案错案”来说，不从道德的或舆论的压力这一角度来探论此事，单单从纯学术纯专业的司法判案角度看，那些当事判案人员可能还认识不到，到底（判案的）哪个环节出了问题？在他们想来，最多是那些检查院起诉部门所列示的“证据”有问题。毕竟，传统的定案焦点在于“人证物证”，传统司法直线理念：只要“人证物证齐全”，那这案子就是板上钉钉，硬梆梆的错不了。
当然，就算此类案子以后真的翻案，那些经办人员也最多以“中国式的”工作失误来粗糙地进行推托，而不是在“专业范畴”中看看到底是“专业中”的哪个环节出了问题，从而举一反三。可能从大视角看，很多人都会认为“中国的问题，从不存在专业的问题”。。。但我个人认为，任何一位尽责的，有强烈事业心的“专业人员”，在宏观层面上，让“国家迈一大步”，那当然是很难很难的，而尽可能地提升本专业的“品质”，使本专业“迈上一小步”，则是那些“专业人员”应担的责任。
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
“耳边轻轻地窃窃私语，犹如心底深处恶魔般的声音
好像是自己的声音，其实却是别人的声音。”
“他们通过我的眼睛，能看到周围人的面孔
他们通过我的耳朵，能听到周围人的声音
他们通过我的大脑，能轻松地预知下一步我想要做什么”
文／透明人——即一个具有“单向心电感应”（single-acting telepathy）的人
摘自资料《现代种盎历程——一个透明人的求助》，曾寄送国务院、中国科学院、中央电视台等相关机构以作说明（及确认）
8月1日上传 每周一更新 "Third Eye reads for the bar" (Part 5)
--- Law and Order: Viewed from outsider
On the reply of last week, it is been depictured preparatory on the logic between "TRUTH" and "EVIDENCE" --- "EVIDENCE" reach to "TRUTH", "TRUTH" come from "EVIDENCE" --- making out a Abstract Logic Proc for Court Judgement. Logic Flowcharting is: Integration with 3 ways before-mentioned --> TRUTH's confirmation --> Reasonable judgement.
But nowadays, the deep law impression is been known by heart, which is "Human Testimony(Evidence) and Material Evidence being, the condemnation holding". At China the traditional law logic is slant towards "Human Testimony and Material Evidence", and the adjudgment is as sure as hell when the "Human Testimony and Material Evidence" make certain.
Because studying in law college, a short way is Backrun Syllogistic Logic --- Short of some evidence or other to adjudicate, So as soon as the evidence being, it is easy to adjudicate like calculating "1+1=2". And it is safe absolutely --- no any personal prefessional risk, if reverse a verdict later on.
(Continue Weekly)
writer/tanweekly
2005.8.1 translate
Haikou China
------------------------------------------------
A murmur in a whisper
likes the voice of ghost with deep-rooted
keep shady under my body ,
Is it mine like mine ? ...... It is its like mine !
They can see around faces which I see share my eyes,
they can listen around talks which I listen share my ears,
they can know all my acts which I think about share my head !
writer/transparent-man: a single-acting telepathy man
excerpt from <<Nowadays Wizard Experience --- a recourse of transparent-man>>, which has been post to The State Council of China, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Chinese Central Television etc for statement and confirmation
原文：
上星期周末的最后一期，初步地阐述了“事实”与“证据”之间的关系，从它们之间的关系——证据服务于事实——也可以抽象出法庭审理的“一般逻辑过程”，即综合“客观的证据”及另二类事实界定的较为主观的途径（“确认”和“认定”）——>事实的定论——>根据所适用的法律作出判决。
但现在很多人的观念中，却总有这么一个法律判决的印象，即“人证物证确凿，该判XXXX罪”，可能是传媒宣传上更注重“关键点”的聚焦性。这种观念在业内也有很深的潜移默化的印迹：中国传统的法律思维取向，很迷信“人证物证”，只要“人证物证确凿”，接下来的“判案”绝对是“十拿九稳”的事。就算以后可能的翻案，法官自认也不会有很大的“内咎”及对判案承担任何责任。因为，在法律学校中学习时，他们学的“护身平安符捷径”也是：从法律条文倒推演绎，要判某项罪，缺某某条件。只要某某条件符合，一般都是“人证物证”，那么，依此判案绝对是象1+1=2一样的“简单”。而且绝对“安全”，没有任何“个人职务风险”。
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
“耳边轻轻地窃窃私语，犹如心底深处恶魔般的声音
好像是自己的声音，其实却是别人的声音。”
“他们通过我的眼睛，能看到周围人的面孔
他们通过我的耳朵，能听到周围人的声音
他们通过我的大脑，能轻松地预知下一步我想要做什么”
文／透明人——即一个具有“单向心电感应”（single-acting telepathy）的人
摘自资料《现代种盎历程——一个透明人的求助》，曾寄送国务院、中国科学院、中央电视台等相关机构以作说明（及确认）
以前月份的“每日观点新闻评议”点击下链：(2005年7月以后为“第三只眼看法制(英译文)”）
2005年 1月份 2月份 3月份 4月份 5月份 6月份 7月份 本月份