(单词翻译:单击)
On a Jury you know your options: guilty, or not. But there's another choice that neither the judge nor the lawyers will tell you -- often because they're not allowed to and also it might better if you don't know.
在陪审团中，你知道自己的选择：有罪或无罪。但还有另一种选择，法官和律师都不会告诉你——通常是因为他们不被允许，而且你最好不知道。
This video will tell you that third choice, but be warned: simply watching may prevent you from ever serving on a jury -- so this is your last chance to hit the pause button before you learn about...
这个视频会告诉你第三个选择，但要注意：仅仅观看可能会阻止你担任陪审员——所以这是你在了解之前按下暂停按钮的最后机会……
Jury nullification: when the defendant is 100% beyond-a-reasonable-doubt guilty but the jurors also think he shouldn't be punished, the jury can nullify the law and let him go free.
陪审团否决权：当被告100%毫无疑问有罪，但陪审员也认为他不应该受到惩罚时，陪审团可以废除法律条文并让他获释。
But before your on your next jury and yell 'Null! Booya!' at the judge you should know that just talking about jury nullification in the wrong circumstances can get you arrested.
但在你参加下一次陪审团审判并向法官大喊“否决！”之前，你应该知道，在错误的情况下谈论陪审团否决权可能会导致你被捕。
Though a video such as this one, simply acknowledging the existence of jury nullification and in no way advocating it is totally OK.
虽然有这样的视频，但只是承认陪审团否决权的存在，而绝不提倡它是完全可以的。
And, while we're at it: (CGP Grey is not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, it is meant for entertainment purposes only. Seriously, guy, don't do anything in a court of law based on what an Internet Video told you. No joke. ) So why can't you do this?
顺便说一下：（CGP Grey不是律师，这不是法律建议，仅供娱乐。不要根据互联网视频告诉你的内容在法庭上做任何事情。不是开玩笑。）那么为什么你不能这样做呢？
It's because nullification isn't in the law , but exists as a logical consequence of two other laws:
因为否决权不在法律条文中，而是作为另外两条法律的逻辑结果而存在的：
First: that juries can't be punished for a wrong decision -- no matter the witnesses, DNA evidence or video proof show. That's the point of a jury: to be the decider.
第一：陪审团不能因错误的决定而受到惩罚——无论证人、DNA证据或视频证据如何。这就是陪审团的意义：成为裁决者。
And second: when a defendant is found not-guilty, that defendant can't be tried again for the same crime.
第二：当被告被判无罪时，该被告不能因同一罪行再次受审。
So there are only two stated options: guilty or not, it's just that jury nullification is when the words of the jurors don't match their thoughts -- for which they can't be punished and their not-guilty decision can't be changed.
所以只有两个既定的选择：有罪或无罪，只是陪审团否决权是指陪审员的言辞与他们的想法不符——他们不能因此受到惩罚，他们的无罪判决也不能改变。
These laws are necessary for juries to exist within a fair system, but the logical consequence is contentious --
这些法律条文对于陪审团在公平制度中的存在是必不可少的，但其逻辑后果是有争议的——
lawyers and judges argue about jury nullification like physicists argue about quantum mechanics.
律师和法官对陪审团否决权的争论就像物理学家对量子力学的争论一样。
Both are difficult to observe and the interpretation of both has a huge philosophical ramification for the subject as a whole.
两者都很难观察，对两者的解释对整个主题都有巨大的哲学影响。
Is nullification the righteous will of the people or an anarchy of twelve or just how citizens judge their laws?
否决权是人民的正义意志还是十二个人的无政府状态，或者只是公民评判法律的方式？
The go-to example in favor of nullification is the fugitive slave law: when Northern juries refused to convict escaped slaves and set them free. Can't argue with that.
支持否决权的典型例子是逃亡奴隶法：北方陪审团拒绝判处逃亡奴隶有罪并释放他们。对此无可争辩。
But the anarchy side is Southern juries refusing to convict lynch mobs. Not humanity at its best. But both of these are juries nullifying the law.
但无政府状态的一方是南方陪审团拒绝判处私刑暴徒有罪。这不是人类最好的一面。但这两个陪审团都是在废除法律。
Also juries have two options where their thoughts may differ from their words.
陪审团也有两种选择，他们的想法可能与他们的言语不同。
Jury nullification usually refers to the non-guilty version but juries can convict without evidence just as easily as they can acquit in spite of it.
陪审团否决权通常指的是无罪判决，但陪审团可以在没有证据的情况下轻易地定罪，也可以在有证据的情况下宣告无罪。
This is jury nullification too and the jurors are protected by the first rule, though the second doesn't apply and judges have the power to overrule a guilty verdict if they think the jurors are not the best.
这也是陪审团否决权，陪审员受到第一条规则的保护，但第二条规则不适用，如果法官认为陪审员不是最好的，法官有权推翻有罪判决。
And, of course, a guilty defendant can appeal, at least for a little while. Which makes the guilty form of jury nullification weaker than the not-guilty kind. Cold comfort, though.
当然，有罪的被告可以上诉，至少在一段时间内可以。这使得有罪形式的陪审团否决权比无罪形式弱。不过，这令人感到安慰。
Given the possibility of jurors who might ignore the law as written, it's not surprising when picking jurors for a trial, lawyers -- whose existence is dependent on an orderly society -- will ask about nullification,
考虑到陪审员可能会无视法律条文，在挑选陪审员进行审判时，律师——他们的存在依赖于有序的社会——会询问否决权，这不足为奇，
usually in the slightly roundabout way: "Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law?"
通常是以一种略带拐弯抹角的方式：“您是否有任何信念可能会阻止您做出严格基于法律的判决？”
If after learning about jury nullification you think it's a good idea: answer 'yes' and you'll be rejected, but answer 'no' with the intent to get on the jury to nullify and you've just committed perjury --
如果在了解了陪审团否决权之后，你认为这是一个好主意：回答“是”你就会遭到拒绝，但回答“否”并打算让陪审团否决，那么你就犯了伪证罪——
technically a federal crime -- which makes the optimal strategy once on a jury to zip it.
严格来说是联邦罪行——这使得在陪审团面前闭嘴成为最佳策略。
But This introduces a problem for jurors who intend to nullify: telling the other 11 angry men about your position is risky, which makes nullification as a tool for fixing unjust laws nation wide problematic.
但这给打算否决的陪审员带来了一个问题：告诉其他11名愤怒的陪审员你的立场是有风险的，这使得否决作为在全国范围内纠正不公正法律条文的工具变得有问题。
(Not to mention about 95% of criminal charges in the United States never make it to trial and rather end in a plea bargain, but that's a story for another time.)
（更不用说美国大约95%的刑事指控从未进入审判阶段，而是以认罪协议结束，但这是另一个故事了。）
The only question about jury nullification that may matter is if jurors should be told about it and the courts are near universal in their decision: 'no way'.
关于陪审团否决权，唯一可能重要的问题是，是否应该告知陪审员，而法院几乎一致决定：“没门”。
Which, again, might seem self-interested -- courts depend on the law -- but there's evidence that telling jurors about nullification changes the way they vote by making evidence less relevant -- which isn't surprising: that's what nullification is.
这可能再次显得自私——法院依赖法律——但有证据表明，告知陪审员否决权会通过使证据变得不那么相关而改变他们的投票方式——这并不奇怪：这就是否决权。
But mock trials also show sympathetic defendants get more non-guilty verdicts and unsympathetic defendants get more guilty verdicts in front of jurors who were explicitly told about nullification compared to those who weren't.
但模拟审判也表明，与没有被告知否决权的陪审员相比，在被明确告知否决权的陪审员面前，同情被告则获得更多无罪判决，而没有同情被告则获得更多有罪判决。
Which sounds bad, but it also isn't difficult to imagine situations where jurors blindly following the law would be terribly unjust -- which is the heart of nullification: juries judge the law, not solely evidence.
这听起来很糟糕，但不难想象，陪审员盲目遵守法律的情况会非常不公正——这是否决权的核心：陪审团判断法律条文，而不仅仅是证据。
In the end righteous will of the people, or anarchy, or citizen lawmaking -- the system leaves you to decide -- but as long as courts are fair they require these rules, so jury nullification will always be with us.
最终是人民的正义意志，或无政府状态，或公民立法——系统让你决定——但只要法院是公正的，他们就需要这些规则，所以陪审团否决权将永远伴随着我们。
