In 2013 01 months 14 days 11:18
Source: PhoenixCentury auditorium

Core tip: this episode invited Chinese American lawyer Zhang Jun as our America with interpretation of judicial justice and freedom of the press. Zhang Jun thinks, justice and freedom of the press are the two core values of a democratic society, justice help people hold the last line of defense, judicial reform can not succeed, the society can not be harmonious. The media should be handed over to the market supervision, the media will be in free competition by virtue of the authority of their own and real winner. Zhang Jun also spoke, judicial justice and media supervision in the development of Western constitutional government system in the sound is not perfect, it is always looking for a balance point.

Phoenix TV in January 13th "Century Forum", the following words to live:

Wang Luxiang: the academic front, thought dialogue, welcomed into the "Century Forum", justice and freedom of the press is a democratic society two most precious value, although in the ideal level, theoretically speaking, the two value is the mutual promotion and unified, but in reality, different subjects according to the different value orientation is a choice between the two, the conflict is inevitable, in the judicial justice and freedom of the press as its core value and cultural America, the relationship between the two is how to coordinate and regulate? There have been intense and lengthy debate, experienced the tough choices, "Century Forum" very honoured today to invite to our guests from afar, a Chinese American lawyer Zhang Junlai guest, as we read in detail American justice, and media freedom, let's welcome Mr. zhang.

Zhang Jun: Thank you, miss wang.

Narrator: Zhang Jun, USA Brigham Young University-Provo doctor of law, is the American Federal Supreme Court trial lawyers, the California Supreme Court barrister, USA immigration court trial lawyers, American Ninth Circuit Court trial lawyers, chairman of Losangeles County Police Bureau Chinese Advisory Committee, attended South University of Florida, engaged in international relations and Sino US relations of learning and research after further studies, was admitted to the world famous USA Brigham Young University-Provo School of law, the USA and international law to conduct theoretical research, system in June 9, 2007, America Supreme Court on more than one hundred trial lawyer oath solemnly held, in this more than 100 people, Zhang Jun as the only black hair and yellow skin of Chinese lawyers, made history.

Wang Luxiang: a lawyer you, today we background wall affixed to a few good photos of your.

Zhang Jun.

Wang Luxiang: I ask, that a picture, that a building you behind the white building, the building is what?

Zhang Jun: that's my trip to the Federal Supreme Court which has a swearing in ceremony.

Wang Luxiang: that is the one hundred of this trial lawyer.

Zhang Jun: Yes, the oath after we'll be in the front left a shadow, in which nine judges with us to talk, talk, help us make a swearing in ceremony.

Wang Luxiang: it should be said that the building is a symbol of justice USA.

Zhang Jun: Yes, whether you like or don't love, separation of three rights USA, if you add the media is the four rights, are in the inside have great discretion.

Wang Luxiang: is the right decision, good, here is you and a America an old man with a photo, who is this man?

Zhang Jun: he is a justice of the Supreme Court inside the most liberal, called the Breyer (Breye), he is the one for many years (Justice), but he had had for so many years is always standing on this side of the free standing firmly in the liberal, that is to say if you want to talk about freedom of speech, freedom of the media that he talked about, is firmly on the side.

Wang Luxiang: a phenomenon which is very strange, he was a justice of the Supreme Court, he was in this position it not to move or retreat for media freedom to defend, huh.

Zhang Jun: This is indeed still, he plays a very crucial vote, because the Supreme Court now basically is five conservative, four liberal, so if the liberal these friends if not insist, maybe a lot of some of the more pursuit of freedom the bill is likely to be reversed.

Wang Luxiang: we are going to discuss today is justice American and media freedom, right, we have just said, this is the two core values of a democratic society, but they are actually in the actual operation level is often have some conflict, right, so we China in this a lot of what happens in the middle, we can also find especially in a recent period of time, especially the one called from the media, or this blog, with these things later, you will often find that there are public some criminal cases, you say Yao the case, and this LittleYue Yue events, and recent child abuse of this event, really if without a free press, may be a lot of truth was not disclosed, but we also find, the freedom of the media when the control is not good, or are some people abuse it, it will form of judicial justice kidnapping, right, so the things in the Chinese you are going to look at several public events?

Zhang Jun: I think it's China media, of course, the new media is becoming more relatively more freedom, so in the process of new media, it happened just like you said, good when it exposes many disadvantages of society, bad times may also make a lot of innocent people the ordinary people because they are the false or wrong later on they also caused the great this problem, America history before the constitutional history also have this problem, I can speak, but it later, basically it is not taken is the media further control and imprison on the contrary, is to make the media more free and open, which is the one America federal Supreme Court said, he thought that is the media, not the end, should the market to comment, also is to let it on the free market economy to competition, we are all know "National Enquirer magazine more authoritative" or "New York Times" more authoritative, readers will naturally make such a decision. So I think these problems is not terrible, the key is we use what kind of method to deal with these problems.

Wang Luxiang: that is to say this kind of freedom in fact media fully, including different media between one event and the same message in different level or back and forth even this one crossed each other, and even the opposite reports, is a fully exposed the truth of the incident.

Zhang Jun: Yes, I believe the audience after a period of time, the audience is also to have a guide and education process, after a period of time, the audience will form their own judgments, for example, I like to watchFawkesThe news, or do you like watching CNN news, this will gradually form a pattern, finally I believe that the media reports, the authority of the authenticity of the media itself can win.

Wang Luxiang: you can win, on, how do you define these two basic values that a judicial justice and freedom of the press?

Zhang Jun: I think the supervision and judicial justice and the media even in the development of American western constitutional system more perfect, in fact it is always looking for a balance point, that is to say you can't always find the most, while mentioned in my speech, there is no 100% of the judicial justice, then no 100% of the freedom of speech, between the two is constantly on the run in, to find a balance point of their own, in fact America society I think over the past 236 years of constitutional history is three to the right in each other constantly running in mutual balance in the constitution, coupled with the media of fourth right, is this a few rights continue to spiral balance balance, struggle, finally to promote the social progress.

Wang Luxiang: so there you said the media is the fourth kind of power, right, three forces so in front of us know each other have a constraint is a balance, so now the media out later, who is going to supervise the media?

Zhang Jun: This is one of the biggest problems, so my answer is of course I studied America constitutionalism, I can clearly tell you about, Miss Wang I certainly do not want the government to monitor the media, the media finally to be supervision must be like the judge what I have just said, is by the market to oversee the media, the media often report if something wrong, it not only to survive, the laws of the market will be eliminated.

Wang Luxiang: it was closed.

Zhang Jun: Yes, if you are a credibility constantly the credibility of the media, you naturally you have vitality.

Wang Luxiang: you said, in addition to do some of the case in America outside of these years, you appear more in the middle of some political comments, and you often came back to China, here called on some judicial reform Chinese, what do you think is the most important moment Chinese judicial reform?

Zhang Jun: I think the Chinese judicial reform is actually a multitude of things, I am also very understanding, is the reform and opening up thirty years Chinese high-speed operation, the machine running today, will inevitably produce conflict and social many social problems, then reform the judicial justice is actually help people hold the last line of defence. A a final a dam or a line, if the judicial reform can not succeed, but eventually the society I think is not harmonious, so the judicial reform to today, I think I may still had called, is the independence of the judiciary judicial transparency is very important, while I was in my speech also referred to the judicial status of the comparison is the (high), have greatly improved, improve the judicial course, he also needs to improve the quality of their own, but if we can't get the independent legal person status, so many times can produce some short-sighted behavior, which in the long run, could reform the entire a judicial system is bad.

Explanation: the judicial justice and freedom of the press is regarded as the core value and cultural American society, America justice have what characteristic, loose how to achieve the right balance American federalism, constitutional amendment is to protect the freedom of the media, "Century Forum" "America justice and freedom of the press" is broadcast.

Wang Luxiang: Here we give a warm welcome to Mr. Zhang Jun to give us a speech, he is the theme of my speech today is "USA justice and freedom of the press", welcome.

Zhang Jun: Thank you very much for your classmates today to listen to my speech, America justice over the past 230 years of history, it is also in the running continuously to promote judicial justice, but it basically USA I to sum up, it is basically has several characteristics, the first feature is great restrictions on the administrative rights, we know USA is such a system of federalism a loose, loose what is called federalism, is USA president is very arrogant in overseas, but he has been greatly compressed in their home of his rights, he not only is USA president in his power sharing the federal level with the Congress, with the Supreme Court Justice to share his power, he at the state level he has also been a lot of control, what I said, the so-called America federalism is how one thing, I think it is the constitutional system in the very great degree is a limit the administrative authority of such a process.

Then he in the federal central this level, he restricted the administrative power, such as Obama came to power, he realized the Democrats in a not achieved over the past decades things, it is to let American people each and everyone is called the National Health Insurance Act, passed such a national health insurance act, it realizes the Democrats can not be achieved in the decades since World War II, such an ideal, but he also against the Conservatives a lot of people, especially you like in the electoral process with Romney, Romney has repeatedly criticized, is Obama in the USA to so-called socialist road, therefore, there are a lot of opposition, the opposition forces in this Congress because it lacks enough the 2/3 majority needed to use the bill Obama by the veto, so they use the government set a level, also is the federal court system using the system, the Supreme Court on the way from the court system of the state, always to the Supreme Court and the Federal , to the Federal Supreme Court a what do you mean, he hopes the Federal Supreme Court judge Obama by the administrative authorities to promote the national health insurance act is unconstitutional.

We know that in 1803, there was a Marbury v. American government, passed a bill that, American Federal Supreme Court then determine a precedent, what is this precedent, is now the Supreme Court can be sentenced to federal president of executive orders, or by the Congress federal law is in accordance with the American constitution, so there's a bunch of people said that although we in the Congress we pass this against a bill Obama of national health insurance, but we can tell the court system, then through the court system to do when, in this year (2012) earlier years, when the Supreme Court decided to hear a case, we know that the Supreme Court heard the case is not that the appellant to power, they may apply to the Federal Supreme Court probably pick but about 1% of the cases, some cases related to the beneficial to the people's livelihood to listen.

So when the Supreme Court decided to hear the case, a lot of people have been in the judgment that Obama's election may already feel helpless to flowers, the reason is the Supreme Court now are the nine judges with five votes to four votes, five are conservative, four one is the liberal, you think, if so Obama took office after the political heritage only is pushing for a national health care bill, if the Supreme Court to overturn the act, that is Obama take what things in the two years after the campaign, but after the case last judgment now, you will find that there has been a dramatic change in the situation of large, this dramatic change what, is a Supreme Court judge called JohnRoberts, named John, justice Roberts, he made a decision, one appointed by President George W. Bush nominated by the Senate of the certification, access to the highest the court when the judge, then this person is a thought that tend to conservative, and he used to do in the appeals court When the justices, his case basically inclined to conservative, so we see that how judges at the last moment, he was standing at the Obama national health insurance in case this side.

When the judgment written, written more than 2000 pages, a lot of our media friends because of rush to the news, he may look at the first page, the first page from the beginning of many pages are in the criticism of Obama's National Health Insurance Act, many of these anxious to grab the headlines these media reporter, it has been said that Obama has been declared unconstitutional, but there are some of the more responsible journalists have the opportunity to read the last page, only to find that they finally found Obama of the National Health Insurance Act, most are not unconstitutional, that is to say when the key is to save the Obama, imagine look, if be rejected is how one thing, so this will highlight what I have just said, the separation of the three powers of the justice of the judicial procedure is the highest level of the public on a on the president's limit, because you think the Supreme Court judge John Roberts, if he is to stand in the conservative side, announced that it is unconstitutional, he is what people will not offend, the first he had ideas is to stand on the right side, he is the most easy to do A decision, but now he must stand on Obama's national health insurance case this side, then he is actually the first he offended conservatives of these friends, we all feel how you say we send you go, your key when betrayed us, second Obama may did not expect him to take this vote for himself, but his one behind the Reason (reason) what is an explanation behind it, is what I as a judge, I to the future judicial case I take on the responsibility, why should a responsible, reason is that the bill is a national election out of the president to push, then a bill to promote national elected House of Representatives and the Senate, if today I one vote rejected at the local big public opinion, but the bill could be in 2013 and 2014 it announced to implement, so today I gave it not out I think of this, I am on the history of irresponsible, even though I make this decision may be very easy, because Obama would not have called me, I was not on his side, my self The Party comrades may also be very happy.

But he chose this I think it highlights the justice of the Supreme Court of federal he has very high very highly of the political courage, is at a crucial moment he would betray the wings of his comrades, to make him think of the law on the legislation of some of the most consistent with the decision a decision that its own moral mode, is what I want to say what, at the highest level, the relationship between several it is kept in the mutual checks and balances, then you will find the balance in the process of administrative rights is subject to very big limitation, so after so many years of running, USA Constitution itself it does not have a word to change, since the 236 years of history to today, we know that the constitution American is a word or a punctuation will not change, amendment really change the constitution but also to more than 20, because the threshold you have to pass a constitutional amendment is very high, so a lot of time reflected the America how legal to keep pace with the times, the times of One is to through some of the Federal Supreme Court these kept some of the new law, to promote the progress of the society through this case.

Amendment this more than 20 constitution that I just mentioned. One of which is the first amendment to the constitution, this is the media called the news media, the right or freedom of speech, it is because of this right, so in the past several years history American media play a very important is to supervise the government of such a role, then you know that in the 1964 there was a "New York Times" tell Sullivan that such a case, before this, many of the media to report the administration of the government or government officials, every year in the process of these media will by the government to report that they are libel, then the media, so in many in many southern media, later will become less willing to report abuse of the government, finally one day came to the "New York Times" case, then through the "New York Times USA" case, the Federal Supreme Court finally made a precedent.

If the authorities of the government to tell the media to slander you, then you must be above the ordinary people's libel coupled with a very high threshold, the threshold English called Actualmalice (real malicious), that is when you have to prove that the media in reporting this matter with you actual malice, because you want to prove one's heart is really malicious to report on it, and some time threshold is very high, this also is since 1964 to now, as the Supreme Court has set a very non constant high threshold, will lead the government even more afraid of the media, so there is no way to talk to the media to play this lawsuit, so I think this is it at the central level or the federal level it is basically a structure like this, then spoke about the American justice, amendment, we had to put the several constitution of USA, we mentioned the amendment America had 20. The constitution, but fourteen of them are in the protection of the rights of individuals.

What is the rights of the individual, basically is in my view it with our judicial justice is a relationship is very close, this one has some of the most important this amendment, for example the fourth amendment of the constitution, the fifth amendment, sixth, seventh, eighth amendment, like the fourth amendment case, is to protect the people against the government unreasonable arrest, search or confiscation of property, the fifth amendment is the right of the people don't do to their disadvantage, this likely in the future in the criminal proceedings against themselves some testimony, what is called the fifth amendment, was at that time we have a BP oil at Mexico oil spill, after the BP oil spill at the time of this the people are boiling with resentment, at that time many members proposed to the criminal prosecution of BP oil executives, when they are hearing in America Congress, a pledge that I tell the truth what what, a phone talk after he first tells is the chairman of the Committee sir, I need to use the fifth amendment to the constitution of my rights, the president will say I will give you just decide to shame, but is You can go, I won't force you to do something today do some of the testimony, for you in case you really be charged, it will be bad for you.

I like this age teacher Wang may we eighty's, have seen a famous America TV series called "detective Hunter", with the gangster films today are about the story, what, is this person is a police officer, a handsome police every day, every day with a dainty and cute Jinghua the streets to patrol, patrol later often caught people, later caught people chanting the general, you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to find a lawyer, otherwise, your words will be the court for evidence and so on, these things, I think very strange, I thought this TV series is the author of the conflict to make some drama, but that is not the case, because America it Fourth Amendment later had a case of a Supreme Court, as Miranda warned, say police arrest, search the person, you must give it a warning, if there is no such a warning, so you get the future cannot be used as evidence in a court for the evidence, so the police caught the man is caught, so The fourth amendment protections such a justice of the people.

For example I can give you an example, that the Fourth Amendment protection of citizens in their own kingdom in one's own home against unreasonable searches and arrest, for example in the Arizona is such a case, one day, the police received a report, received a report said that there is a shooter, this gun a a bullet from aThe apartmentInside out, then the police because the law is in an emergency a, the police can not warrant and arrest warrant entered early to go inside to the life safety of people, so they go beyond, into this house inside the apartment itself is legal, but into the apartment he found this apartment suddenly how have so some of the advanced audio, the advanced audio. Two sets of advanced audio, be misfits with the appearance of this apartment, this apartment there ought not to be so advanced audio, so this clever police quickly put the sound move to come over, see a look behind coding, then call ask headquarters, said that is not in the vicinity of advanced audio shop had lost the sound, the sound that later found out it was precisely this stolen.

Then of course this is originally the shootings have not detected a result, but this man was charged with stealing, because he was found after an emergency. In this case, it has been hit by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court sentenced the suspects were successful, which said the police you in the case of an emergency access to the people inside, itself is not in violation of the fourth amendment to the constitution, but you go after you without a search warrant, no other evidence of the case, you do not have to go to the judge for a warrant, you can put the sound also here, behind the code at the program, you have a problem, so in this case he will be found, that is what you mean, is that although this person is stealing, but because the police to obtain evidence of the way is illegal, so it is not.

Explanation: USA judicial justice and freedom of the media after a long heated debate and tough choices in reality, how to guarantee the judicial media freedom of speech, and how the media with justice, American government v. Nixon and Simpson case, why become a classic case of judicial justice and media freedom in the United States? "Century Forum" "America justice and freedom of the press" is broadcast.

Zhang Jun: the media in this process, how to match the judicial justice, the media have also done a lot of work, you say, there is a famous example of our history, called USA government v. Nixon in this case, we know that Nixon in the Chinese enjoy a relatively high reputation, because of his pioneering the relationship between China and the United States, but in USA he is not a honorary president, is the reason why he was late in his ruling time, this especially when interim re-election, he appeared in the so-called "Watergate", the "Watergate" I want to explain, it is with the water never mind, never mind with the door, it is a hotel in Washington, although his re-election when his poll his opinion is very influential, but this Xie Zhigong some superfluous campaign below him, the volunteer service personnel or the Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate Hotel ran, then the theft of some information to them, which lead to a time a great disturbance, this "Washington Post" at the time of this is a very big reports, but also created a USA calendar The history of the last a very important call the reporter's investigation, is called BobWoodward (Bob Woodward), the man with deep throat two person through unremitting efforts of more than a year, finally put the things finally from a lowly volunteers contacted a senior Nixon government adviser, and forced Nixon in 1974 when the very dishonourable underground station, then the government in this process will be appointed a special prosecutor, this special prosecutors had asked Nixon to put all the associated with this information, to provide the special prosecutor's investigation, then in the process the Nixon, use a presidential exemption is president, because have a lot of state secrets, you don't want these things with me, finally, the Supreme Court said you have to put these data to the prosecutor, in particular, the reason is the special prosecutor in the investigation of this process, he has the right to understand the related to the things Nixon with some of his aides to communicate with these things.

There is also a case, is everybody know some time ago in Florida, a militia or security personnel, public security personnel he usually with a gun, like the streets to patrol, patrol in the process, a fight broke out with a black sea, fight in the process, he put the the black boy to kill, this is called TrayvonMartin (Tyrevon Martin) the case, after the killing by police of the court process, he put off, let go because he is self-defense, because at that time the black children to attack him, but this thing out media has made unremitting efforts keep on repeating at great length to report, then the media is put forward many questions, is this what is black is fighting with him or not with him to fight, the people as long as the thought that this man looked like black, looks like is not a good child, then this killed the black, so the media throughout the process finally changed the climate of a judicial at the Florida.

Florida State government finally to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this case, again, now charged the militia or the community policing is a member of two degree murder, so have a look the next year (2013) in this case is how to judge, so American history media to change the government's point of view this is There are plenty of people who, don't even say recent our famous director of central intelligence than the sex scandal Petraeus's case, and former US President Clinton's sex scandal, etc. These are all in the history of the media is kept in the published or media supervision in the administrative authorities of many power constantly, so media in the protection of the judicial justice, history and a famous case, they have done some work, students are also interested, this is more than a decade ago, the Simpson case, the Simpson case, you know, the Simpson case is American history the first real, is Ito is a Japanese American judge, judge Ito to the whole procedure of a prosecution process in his court Full real-time playback to the America audience.

Then in the process of media I think to a large extent indeed played the role of supervision, so Is it right? Played the supervision over the role, this is to be future generations to review, but basically the outcome of the case I think the students but also to understand, in this case, this is the result that football star told us these domestic sports stars, in American is make known to every family, but one day, he was charged with, so he murdered his white wife and his white ex boyfriend, so in the process of litigation, appeared a lot of a lot of drama things, then in the process I just mentioned because of the provisions America have the Fifth Amendment of the constitution, so we are the Simpson composition of the dream team's defense team does not need to prove that Simpson did not murder, opposite to the prosecutor has 100% of the responsibility to prove murder of Simpson, so that the burden of proof it is completely different.

Therefore when his dream team in Simpson's defense, they only need to do is to constantly put forward various kinds of reasonable doubt before the jury members, if the jury members have any reasonable doubt, the provisions of this America constitution, if you have any doubt you can't for this conviction, then of course the basically is composed by the black juror everyone believes that the evidence is insufficient, instead of only one person, only this one case has not advance, and all the people think this case (evidence), of course this later jurists have many comments on this matter, some people said the prosecutors this choice in the area of the jury is unfavorable to the case history, although the data do not support this, also is the black jury often black conviction, the blacks have this consciousness, this is not a problem.

There is a saying that the main problem where later, is that the police in the investigation of the case process in many places in violation of the Simpson Constitution gives it the four five six Amendment rights, such as the dream team kept out, it is the white detective named MarkFuhrman (Mark Forman), had a lot of black irreverent comments in history, made out of black a lot of disrespect, so today the bloody gloves if not there is here, whether we should have a reasonable doubt, is the white, we are not saying that must be him, but because of his dreams the team's threshold low, he need only ask the jury you doubt no doubt this thing, so keep that make this thing, we the jury has affirmed the facts here, had the reasonable doubt, the reasonable doubt that sorry, later finally, the jury announced his decision, the judge Ito to court to Simpson to go, it will come to an end.

Because America another legal justice a justice is a powerful weapon to the suspect, is that the same charges cannot be prosecuted second times, that you can't say the government I pleased not this jury convicted today, tomorrow I will spend money to make one, until the man convicted of the date, the USA constitution says, the government too has the resources too much money, if keep the government indicted, isn't there a year to prosecute the Clinton special prosecutor, called KennethStarr (Kenneth, Starr), called Starr prosecutors, he said such a paragraph, he said that if you can give me enough money, I can successfully sued a hamburger, is also the government resources is too big, so it does not allow him to do it, so I China many the judicial units like the university to talk, often students they asked, so we let a set a seventy or eighty many percent of people think that man killed his ex-wife and her boyfriend, not very unfair I personally think that, the first he did kill, because we are lack of direct contact with God, we see nothing, we have to believe we made such a system is our jury, the jury said he didn't kill, that we may from the angle of law must accept this first, this is.

Second, let a murderer may be terrible maybe is not good, but at least this time I think it has certain positive significance, the positive significance is again to the law enforcement units nationwide these people once again on a a legal education courses, or give him a ring a wake-up call, if you want use illegal means to obtain more favorable evidence against you, even if it is a very good evidence, the evidence as your means of illegal, program illegal, you get is not as you first you can't suspect convicted, second you like this Simpson it was sued his attorney, finally forced to resign, or retired, because he knows he will choose not, you are wasting the taxpayers so much money to do this thing, you can't push you down these, also is the police when you think through such means, I didn't get to his promotion, to realize the benefits for their own ambitions, that I need to go against, then every thing we have The rules can do it well, and let more America after these people who don't have to worry about in the evening when the police a happy to kick from your home, you see a drug with your wife at home, put the two of you catch up, although your drug is wrong, but he kicked the door without a search make and arrest warrant, this itself has been violated, so I'm from if you must find a partial positive in this case, I think this is the positive side of the

Finally, I want to speak, is the USA judicial practitioners, judicial practitioners this of course to include lawyers, including the prosecutors, including judges, the time I can't everyone speak, but basically no matter whether you are a judge or prosecutor, you must first own is a lawyer, that is control yourself by the lawyers law, why should I say this? I think it is very important to the realization of judicial justice, is the prosecutor, many people have a misunderstanding, that the prosecutor is the victim's lawyer.

In fact, the prosecutor is not the victim's lawyer, the prosecutor is representative of the people in the prosecution of one of his crimes suspects, but when he found the suspect about things, the evidence in the investigation process were found to have time for the possible perpetrators, prosecutors have the same responsibility to tell the perpetrators, for example in the East we have a case, is this a few football a woman sued the University star on her for gang rape, was a prosecutor special don't know why he is so positive, is indiscriminately the five person to catch up, then had to be prosecuted.

In spite of the prosecution process a variety of DNA evidence, a variety of other evidence suggests that this is a voluntary act, but he was finally out of media exposure, after being out of media exposure, this person is about to resign, because if he does not resign, because first of all he is a lawyer, lawyers' Union to lift, to cancel his qualification as a lawyer, then the victim but also for his so-called civil prosecution, which prosecutors have great responsibility, he when prosecutors indict him you, he will hand to protect the victims.

But once the story is not true, there is time for suspected offender, he would tell the offender, remember that the International Monetary Fund, Mr. Kahn, in New York he not also encountered a similar thing, a whole process, started the time that he raped the hotel waiter, but soon Discovery Inn Hotel staff have too many problems. At that time the prosecutor he absorbed the lessons I have just mentioned in the eastern football team of prosecutors, the first time he informed Kahn of lawyer, the case quickly to Kahn of all charges by the reversed, although the cancellation came too late, Kahn not only when the president does not. The International Monetary Fund, also did not run for president of France chance, but basically this man is now a free man.

I want to say is that the judicial system, is each ring have been kept in the control balance another ring, the four rings Festival together, including federal and states of the system are intertwined, and finally the media from the intervention and supervision powerful side, on the formation of USA today such a judicial system, it may not be perfect, but most people still think it is a more effective legal system, I think today I will stop here, thank you.

Explanation: in the face of more and more subject to judicial opinion intervention case, look at how the media influence the justice, in the development of more than two hundred years of constitutional system, balance the good interaction to form between the media and judicial USA, in order to prevent the guidance of public opinion, judicial officers should have what kind of quality? "Century Forum" "America justice and freedom of the press" is broadcast.

Wang Luxiang: Thank you very much Mr. Zhang Jun wonderful speech, we enter the scene audience, for USA justice and freedom of the press, there are questions to Mr. Zhang Jun to discuss classmates please raise your hands.

Student: I want to ask, is now the power of media in society can be said is very powerful, so some time ago also happened to that child abuse cases, I believe you have to understand, I want to know you for this event is how to treat? Whether it is Chinese justice be influenced by public opinion or that the woman teacher in the event of innocence, or should impose a heavier crime, or in the legislative level, Chinese Is it right? Should additional child abuse sin such a crime? Thank you.

Zhang Jun: This includes like in these western USA mature constitutional system, is the media influence government, especially the prosecutor's decision is still there, I just speak in Florida this case called TrayvonMartin (Tyrevon Martin), is the original police and prosecutors decided not to prosecute him, media put this thing news came out, and later by the higher state government to appoint a special prosecutor, to the case of special.

So this is possible, but I hope that if it is special, he sued the people, but the real to the person convicted, he must pass through the provisions of this constitution, I just said the four five six amendment to the inside of the procedure, it is not because I am from a state special prosecutor Officer to sue you, so you like there may be condemned, he still wants to go through the courts, that is to say the protection he should not only have a prosecutor.

This also to have the judge recognized throughout the program the legitimate, of course his defense lawyers also have a lot of action, at the same time, the local people that the jury will also come to the fair to judge the case, this I feel the impact of the media certainly exist, but the key is if he affected later in this program, we Is it right? Final conviction is a fair and transparent procedures, it provides him with a security.

As for the case of child abuse, I have observed, see China scholars said China is not necessary to separate a list of child abuse, because the harm itself is already included. Personally I don't agree with this point of view, I think a family is the children, especially children minor he is no way to protect themselves, especially in such a small child he has no way, he is a social vulnerable groups. Then both of them in a parliamentary any, do not have their own representatives in a legislature any inside, so basically now western advanced have dedicated to the protection of children's rights and interests of this bill, so I think that what has happened.

But it seems not the first, China there are, I think, I am more support, is the children, since we have the protection of some special act of the woman, why not to protect an underage children act, I think this should be, should be fully can do.

Classmate: for this USA judicial justice and freedom of the press, good how to form a reasonable balance interaction between them? What do you think? Thank you.

Zhang Jun: I just talked to Mr. Wang in the communication of this problem, I think this is any, I did not think any country can be said that he has done very well, is like American its constitutional system two years of development, the media and the judicial impartiality always is in mutual restriction, mutual contradiction. Don't stop the evolution in the process, I just told you about "New York Times" against the Sullivan in this case. Then in 1964, before this, American many media is not, is not willing to go against the government, because once against the government, the government in turn all say you are slandered, even if you say one thing, you five things to say, you say one thing, your is defamation, media this year hundreds of millions in damages.

But after the sully. Later, the Supreme Court said you if so, that means you are to put a ChillingEffects (chilling effect), it is to make the all media published in the exposure of some bad policy the government, have entered a chilling effect, then it unless you to prove that the media in reporting this, their own deliberate malice, otherwise, you can't sue them for libel. Since this matter, the case, then the government, you know you rarely hear the government or a senior government officials to tell the media now, because I must come to finally meet rejection, so I think that it is always in a party it is keeping pace with the times, I believe it will not stop to each other running in advance.

Student: Zhang lawyers Hello is that we know, before you said that the selection jury is first of all he is prior to this thing is never seen any of the media reports, and then in the trial process, it must abandon the previous experience, previous experience, and then in the American some judges he would say in this case to make his judgment, he won't go to see the relevant reports. In China words, such as Yao's case has a lot of people by consensus, that is the wrong guide, then lead to cases of bizarre twists and turns it, how well, that you feel in China, Chinese judicial personnel Is it right? To, is to get rid of these East West, or add something the program, and then the judicial personnel to set aside the public opinion guidance or prejudice.

Zhang Jun: Yeah, I think it is an environment is the ideal of justice, judicial personnel is able to completely independently according to their legal literacy and things true colours to make a judgment, even if the judge and the public opinion at that time is not the mainstream or supported by the mainstream media, I just mention some American history of some famous cases. At the time, for example, a recent case, is our Gore with George W. Bush's election, election cases that George W. Bush because of the controversial six hundred votes in Florida's problems led to his election victory, but in fact, Al Gore won more general election votes, is more than the George W. Bush nearly five hundred thousand votes.

But the court was declared not Florida recount larger scale, this is the decision of the Supreme Court, after that it determines, at that time, you think, if Gore with more than five hundred thousand people, such a support ticket than George W. Bush, that was clearly not the mainstream public opinion, but the big the judges can in that situation, he decided that I will be based on the independent judgment of my own.

I think this reflects the judges need to show in the crucial time of his political courage and legal aspects of the quality, of course, I think this has to do with its organizational structure, is American Federal Supreme Court justice, he is a lifetime, was once appointed, he does not guilty of murder and burn sin, who also took it not down, he died in his own, can die in this position his own. So is the history of a judge is many, before him with the idea to appoint his president is consistent, on the table has been inconsistent, at the end of his resignation retired died, he has become a firm stand on the opposite the president appointed him completely, so I think it is necessary to cultivate the people completely independent legal personality is very important.

Wang Luxiang: America Supreme Court justice Black once said that "freedom of speech and justice is our civilization in the two most precious things, it is difficult to make a choice between the two," Zhang Jun's lawyer today's speech elaborated coordination of justice and freedom of the press are the two major value in USA society and mutual balance, give full play to the role of mass media supervision on justice and promoting the role of hand. On the other hand, to avoid the negative influence of mass media on the independence of the judiciary may cause, lawyer Zhang Jun's speech prompted us to more rational thoughts on the relationship between justice and media supervision, is to protect the citizens shall enjoy freedom of speech and media enjoys freedom of the press, and maintain the principle of judicial independence and judicial authority, the law and press circles we need important subject of study. Thank you for the wonderful speech Zhang Jun lawyer.

Zhang Jun thank you.

Wang Luxiang: also thanks to live and television audiences, next week at the same time we "Century Forum"..