litmus test試金石

'Your Honour, I am here in a unique position. 'Usually, I stand at the bar, 'but now I am in this courtroom as a witness, a complainant, a victim. 'As a barrister, I have questioned women in sexual assault cases 'on the assumption that evidence can be delivered in a clean, logical package, 'and now I have seen from my own attempts here that it cannot be. 'In all of my professional life, 'I have participated in a system that has done this to women, 'and now I know it is not right. 'It is not reasonable, because now I know, 'from my own life, both as a woman and a lawyer, 'that the lived experience of sexual assault, 'it is not remembered in a neat, consistent, scientific parcel. 'And it's because of that, the law often finds evidence "unbelievable". 'So, I understand a witness can be mistaken in their evidence. 'I have suggested it time and time again. 'But this is not a car accident, or a home invasion. 'This is rape. 'It's a crime against the person and now I know. 'You know, when a woman says "no", when her actions say "no", 'it is not a subtle, unreadable thing at all. 'Yet before this, I too, I would suggest that she was mistaken. 'But when a woman has been violated, it is a corrosive wound. 'It is one that starts with terror and pain deep into the body. 'It then overtakes the mind, the soul. 'Yet before this, I too, I would suggest that "she was confused". 'I mean, the message is, if we do not deliver our evidence neatly 'in a clear linear story, with consistency in recall, then we are lying. 'Yet before this, I would point out inconsistencies as proof of doubt. 'I would tell the jury they couldn't possibly be sure. 'As a lawyer I know, I know, 'the law, it cannot jettison consistency entirely, but in sexual assault cases, 'can we keep using it as the litmus test of credibility? 'Because, as a victim, let me tell you 'the rape and the perpetrator, they are vividly recalled. 'The peripheral details, not so clearly. 'If a woman is rattled by having to relive the nightmare in court, 'if a woman's experience of rape is not as the court likes it to be, 'then we conclude that she is prone to exaggeration 'and it's because of this she is so often disbelieved. 'So here in court, I want to call it out.'

「法官大人，我在這兒的位置是獨一無二的。 「通常我站在律師席，可現在我在這個法庭裡是證人，是控告人，是受害人。 「作為大律師，我盤問過性侵案子裡的女人， 「預設證據可以交成一份乾淨、合乎邏輯的材料， 「而現在我從自己在這兒的嘗試看見，做不到。 「我當律師這些年，一直參與著一套這樣對待女人的制度， 「現在我知道這不對。 「這不合理，因為現在我知道，從我自己的生活，既作為女人也作為律師， 「性侵的親身經歷，不會被記成一份整整齊齊、前後一致、像科學記錄那樣的材料。 「正因為這樣，法律常常覺得證據『不可信』。 「所以，我理解證人在證詞裡會記錯。 「我一次又一次這麼主張過。 「可這不是車禍，也不是入室行兇。 「這是強姦。 「這是針對人身的罪，現在我知道了。 「你知道，當一個女人說『不』，當她的行動說『不』， 「那一點也不含糊，也不是讀不懂的。 「可在這之前，我也會主張她記錯了。 「可當一個女人被侵犯，那是一道腐蝕性的傷。 「它從深入身體的恐懼和疼痛開始。 「然後蓋過心智，蓋過靈魂。 「可在這之前，我也會主張『她當時是糊塗的』。」 「我是說，這意思就是，如果我們不能把證據交得整齊， 「也講不成一條清楚、順著往下的故事，回憶也對不上，那我們就是在說謊。 「可在這之前，我會把對不上的地方指出來，當作懷疑的證明。 「我會告訴陪審團，他們不可能確定。 「作為律師我知道，我知道， 「法律不能把一致性整個扔掉，可在性侵案子裡， 「我們還能繼續拿它當可信度的試金石嗎？ 「因為，作為一個受害人，讓我告訴你們， 「強姦本身，和那個加害的人，記得清清楚楚。 「邊上的細節，就沒那麼清楚。 「如果一個女人因為得在法庭上把那場噩夢再過一遍而慌了， 「如果一個女人被強姦的經歷，不像法庭想要的那樣， 「我們就斷定她容易誇張，也正因為這樣，她才那麼經常不被相信。 「所以在這個法庭上，我要把它點破。」

'There was a time, not so long ago, 'when courts like this did not see non-consensual sex in marriage as rape, 'did not see that battered women, 'they fight back in a manner distinct from the way that men fight. 'Yet once we see, I mean, we cannot unsee, can we? 'Now I see from my own experience 'that we have got it all wrong when it comes to sexual assault. 'We don't interrogate the law's own assumptions, 'instead we persist on interrogating the victims. 'The law is an organic thing. It is defined by us. 'It is constructed by us, in light of our experiences. 'All of ours, so there are no excuses any more. 'It must change because the truth is that one in three women are sexually assaulted 'and their voices, they need to be heard, they need to be believed 'in order for justice to be done.'

「不久以前還有過這樣的時候， 「像這樣的法庭不把婚姻裡未經同意的性行為看成強姦， 「也沒看出這一點：受虐的女人， 「她們還手的方式和男人打架的方式不一樣。 「可一旦看見了，我是說，我們就沒法再裝成沒看見，對吧？ 「現在我從自己的經歷看見，在性侵這件事上，我們全搞錯了。 「我們不審問法律自己的假設，反而堅持審問受害人。 「法律是活的。它由我們定義。 「它由我們建造，照著我們的經歷。 「我們所有人的經歷，所以再也沒有藉口。 「它必須改，因為事實是三分之一的女性遭受過性侵， 「而她們的聲音需要被聽見，需要被相信，公正才能實現。」