pedestal翻译_英文翻译中文在线翻译软件

《第二十条》票房破15亿！“正当防卫”用英语怎么说？ 　　【中英双语】《第二十条》票房破15亿！“正当防卫”用英语怎么说？ 　　看到同学被霸凌、看到小混混在公交车上猥亵女性、看到家人长期被欺凌……如果你是当事人，你会如何处理？选择出手制止，还是选择沉默？ 　　每个人心中应该都有自己的答案。 　　由张艺谋执导的春节档电影《第二十条》（Article 20）聚焦正当防卫（justifiable defense）这一热议法条，电影片名取自刑法第20条规定，讲述了基层青年检察官顶住重重阻力，追根溯源还原案件真相，只为守护公平正义底线的故事。 　　The film, Article 20, which is directed by Zhang Yimou, draws its name from Article 20 of the Criminal Law, which focuses on the sometimes contentious legal concept of justifiable self-defense. 　　该影片参考了此前司法机关办理的多个真实的正当防卫的案例，引起了广大观众和司法机关的和共鸣。 　　影片强调不能机械理解法条，更不能向不法行为让步。 　　Drawing inspiration from real-life cases of justifiable defense, the film has garnered widespread attention and resonated with the public as well as judicial institutions during the Spring Festival holiday. The movie calls for a nuanced interpretation of legal provisions and urges against compromising on unlawful conduct. 　　在影片中，一个充满正义感的年轻人因为制止校园霸凌，打伤施暴者后反成了被告；一名公交车司机在制止女乘客被猥亵时打伤了小混混反被威胁；一个中年人因自己和妻子长期被人欺凌而后奋起反抗至对方死亡，从而面临刑罚……这一个个故事无不揪着观众的心。

　　因为这些故事都真真切切发生在百姓身边，因此很容易产生共鸣。 　　为了鼓励公民积极与犯罪分子作斗争，有效保护公民的人身安全和合法权益，有利于震慑犯罪分子，维护社会稳定，1997年，我国刑法对正当防卫进行了修改完善，放宽了防卫限度的条件，即正当防卫明显超过必要限度造成重大损害的是防卫过当，规定了无限防卫，即针对严重危及人身安全的暴力犯罪可以采取无限度的防卫，即使造成了不法侵害者伤亡后果的也不负刑事责任。 　　According to the Criminal Law, when a person, faced with an unlawful attack, takes action to protect his or her own rights or interests or those of others, and the attacker is thereby harmed, the defender will be considered to have acted in justifiable defense and will not bear criminal liability. 　　但是，一段时间以来，正当防卫因为认定困难，以及“谁死伤谁有理”等错误观念影响，一度被视为是“沉睡条款”。 　　For some time, justifiable defense has been regarded as a “dormant clause”, due to challenges in interpretation and the influence of misconceptions, such as “whoever is injured or killed is right”.

　　图源：豆瓣电影 　　很多网友在线上发表评论说：“法律的意义应该是让坏人犯错的成本更大，而不是让好人见义勇为的代价更高。” 　　Many online users have commented that the true meaning of the law should be to increase the liability for wrongdoers, rather than burdening good people. 　　近年来的实践表明正当防卫对普通老百姓不再是形同虚设的条文。 　　Recent cases have shown that, for ordinary citizens, justifiable defense is no longer an illusory provision. 　　知名的刑法学教授罗翔近日在一篇评论中表示，不要开启“上帝视野”，老是站在“事后诸葛亮”的理性人立场，必须身临其境，带入防卫人的立场，不要对防卫人过于苛责。 　　Luo Xiang, a renowned professor of criminal law at China University of Political Science and Law, said in a recent comment about the film that the public and judicial officers should avoid taking a “godlike” perspective or adopting a rational but armchair stance. 　　Instead, they should consider the situation in which the defender was involved, empathize with the defender’s position, and refrain from making excessive demands on the defender, Luo said. 　　除了法律本身规定较为原则外，涉及正当防卫的案件事实、证据也比较复杂，相当部分的案件缺少证据，导致案件认定出现较大争议。 　　此外，传统司法理念，如“以前的案件都是这么定的”、 “死者为大”、“谁闹谁有理”、“谁死伤谁有理”等，客观上也对正当防卫适用造成了影响。 　　Beyond the statutory provisions, cases involving justifiable defense are often complex, with many lacking adequate evidence, leading to sometimes controversial determinations. Additionally, precedents set in previous cases have influenced the application of the justifiable defense concept. 　　2018年，昆山反杀案唤醒了刑法关于正当防卫这样一个“沉睡条款”。近年来，司法机关又依法办理了赵宇见义勇为案、河北涞源反杀案、浙江盛春平案等一批社会高度的正当防卫案件。 　　A high-profile case in Kunshan, Jiangsu province, in 2018 served as a wake-up call and caught the attention of judicial authorities regarding such cases. In that case, a traffic dispute led to a knife-wielding motorist confronting another man. The motorist was killed, and police and prosecutors determined that the defender’s actions constituted justifiable defense. 　　Since then, prosecutors in several places across the nation have applied the justifiable defense clause. 　　纪丙学表示，正当防卫问题引发社会广泛，实际上反映出了人民群众对民主、法治、公平、正义、安全更高的需求。检察机关及时回应社会关切，积极弘扬社会正气，“法不能向不法让步”的法治精神逐渐深入人心，更成为检察官办理这类案件必须遵循的法治理念。 　　There has been public concern in such cases that has primarily focused on the criteria for determining justifiable defense versus excessive defense. The concern over justifiable defense reflects the public’s demand for democracy, rule of law, fairness, justice and security. The principle of “not compromising with unlawfulness” must guide prosecutors in handling such cases. 　　纪丙学表示，司法作为维护社会公平正义的最后一道防线，如果失守，失去的可能就是民心。 　　”The judiciary serves as society’s last bastion of fairness and justice; any faltering risks eroding public trust,” said Ji Bingxue, a prosecutor with the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. 　　北京市人民检察院第一检察部副主任刘哲表示，如果之前的理念没有转变过来，此前的法律适用存在偏误，那么在这种落后的司法理念指导下办理的案例必然也会发生偏误。 　　”The reliance on outdated judicial concepts inevitably leads to flawed cases. Persisting with such flawed precedents hinders progress, leading to an unjust status quo,” said Liu Zhe, a prosecutor from the Beijing People’s Procuratorate.

　　此外，法律还存在滞后性，有些法律在制定之初是没问题的，但是随着社会发展，不再适用新的形势，这时如果仍然机械理解，也必然容易背离时代发展的趋势，与时代脱节。 　　司法官员应该具有一定的批判思维，应该动态地、辩证地理解法律的实质和时代的变迁，不断用常情常理常识来校正我们的司法理念，满足公众不断提升的法治诉求。 　　Liu emphasized that judicial officers should possess critical thinking skills, dynamically understand the law’s essence, and adapt to evolving societal needs to meet public demands for rule of law. 　　刘哲表示，沿用惯例不容易出错，或者说即使出错，责任也不大，因为毕竟有所依凭和参考。但是如果做出一个与以往都不同的结论，不仅要受到质疑，还会承担全部的风险，这就需要极大的勇气。让大多数人都敢于出手，敢于管事，司法机关就要坚定不移、始终如一地支持正当防卫和见义勇为。 　　Making decisions departing from traditional precedents requires courage and accountability, Liu said, adding that judicial authorities must consistently support justifiable defense and intervention to empower the public to combat illegal activities. 　　只有司法者发自内心尊重和信仰法律，依法办案，不畏千难万险秉公执法，才会让公众信仰法律，相信法律，相信法治的精神能够确定性地实现，刘哲表示。 　　“法律不是冰冷的逻辑，法律是公道自在人心”。