Rachel Harmon on Policing (Ep. 98)
Hello, everyone.
大家好。
I’m speaking today with Rachel Harmon, who is a professor of law at the University of Virginia.
我今天与弗吉尼亚大学法学教授雷切尔·哈蒙 (Rachel Harmon) 交谈。
She is director of the Center for Criminal Justice and one of the nation’s leading experts on policing.
她是刑事司法中心主任，也是美国领先的警务专家之一。
Rachel, welcome.
雷切尔，欢迎。
Thank you.
谢谢。
Simple question.
简单的问题。
Why is the United States so bad at gathering data about its police?
为什么美国在收集警察数据方面如此糟糕？
Well, for one reason, we have more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States, and that’s a lot of data to collect.
原因之一是，美国有超过 18,000 个执法机构，需要收集大量数据。
They’re very diverse, and so it’s hard.
他们非常多样化，所以很难。
We’d have to have a national effort to do it in any sort of coherent way, and we haven’t had the will to do that.
我们必须全国范围内努力以任何连贯的方式做到这一点，但我们没有意愿这样做。
Is it that they don’t want to do it?
是他们不想做吗？
And is the bottleneck at the level of the individual police officer, the department, somewhere else?
瓶颈是在警察个人、部门还是其他地方？
There are bottlenecks all along the way.
一路上都有瓶颈。
If you think about what we traditionally demanded from police departments, the focus of the political demands on police departments have tended to focus on effectiveness in terms of public safety, or at least visible efforts towards producing public safety.
如果你想想我们传统上对警察部门的要求，就会发现对警察部门的政治要求的重点往往集中在公共安全方面的有效性，或者至少是为保障公共安全而做出的明显努力。
There’s been a lot less focus on what kinds of harms policing is imposing.
人们很少关注警察造成的伤害。
We do actually collect a lot of data from police departments, pretty effectively, with respect to crimes.
实际上，我们确实从警察部门收集了大量有关犯罪的数据，非常有效。
We’ve had the uniform crime reports for almost 100 years, and we have standardized definitions of what those crimes are.
近 100 年来我们一直拥有统一的犯罪报告，并且我们对这些犯罪有标准化的定义。
Not perfect, but pretty good data from departments.
并不完美，但来自部门的数据相当不错。
There’s just a lot less interest in collecting data on the coercion that police officers do, like arrests.
只是人们对收集警察强制行为（例如逮捕）数据的兴趣大大减少。
Arrests we use for the crime reports, but stops, uses of force, and the like.
我们在犯罪报告中使用逮捕，但停止、使用武力等。
And it does cost something to collect that data, so you’d need individual officers to take time to do it.
收集这些数据确实需要花费一些钱，所以你需要个别官员花时间来做这件事。
You’d need departments to supervise them, and then you’d need an effort to standardize the definitions and the formats so that we could actually use the data.
你需要部门来监督它们，然后你需要努力标准化定义和格式，以便我们可以实际使用这些数据。
On body cams
在随身摄像机上
If you think of body cams as a form of data on police behavior, would having a body cam on each officer be an effective way of improving the quality of conduct?
如果您将随身摄像头视为警察行为数据的一种形式，那么为每位警官配备随身摄像头是否是提高行为质量的有效方法？
I would start with the premise, which is that body cams are data.
我将从前提开始，那就是随身摄像头就是数据。
So far, body cams are anecdote.
到目前为止，随身摄像头还只是轶事。
As machine learning gets better, they are becoming data, and they’re getting more useful in that way.
随着机器学习变得更好，它们正在成为数据，并且以这种方式变得更加有用。
But body cams are one perspective on an encounter.
但随身摄像头是一次邂逅的一种视角。
Of course, most of the data we get is officer-reported, so they’re useful.
当然，我们获得的大部分数据都是官方报告的，所以它们是有用的。
It’s not clear whether body cams are going to be an important form of data in policing, but I suspect, over time, they will be.
目前尚不清楚随身摄像头是否会成为警务数据的重要形式，但我怀疑，随着时间的推移，它们会成为的。
But do you think police would behave better if they knew they were always being taped?
但你认为如果警察知道他们总是被录音，他们会表现得更好吗？
Some people say they’ll just turn off the body cam, or you won’t be able to prosecute them anyway.
有些人说他们会关掉随身摄像头，否则你无论如何也无法起诉他们。
What’s your empirical view?
您的经验观点是什么？
I’m not a social scientist.
我不是社会科学家。
I’m a lawyer, but I try to follow the social science in this area, and I can tell you that what we know right now is that the results of studies of body cameras, at least in terms of if you’re studying whether they reduce complaints or whether they reduce uses of force, the studies are, at best, mixed.
我是一名律师，但我尝试遵循这一领域的社会科学，我可以告诉你，我们现在所知道的是，随身摄像头的研究结果，至少在研究它们是否减少投诉或是否减少武力使用方面，这些研究充其量是好坏参半。
I would say the evidence that they do good in these respects is pretty weak.
我想说他们在这些方面做得很好的证据非常薄弱。
But what’s your intuition as to why they’re not a clear winner?
但您对为什么他们不是明显的赢家的直觉是什么？
We’re doing a podcast, in essence, with a body cam.
本质上，我们正在用随身摄像头制作播客。
We’re, of course, super nice anyway, but we’re going to be super nice to each other.
当然，无论如何，我们都非常好，但我们会对彼此非常好。
Why doesn’t that just work across the board?
为什么这不能全面发挥作用？
I’m not that nice usually, and if you record me for long enough, I will forget to be nice, and I’ll be my normal not-that-nice self.
我平时不太友善，如果你录我的时间足够长，我就会忘记友善，而我就会成为正常的不那么友善的自己。
I think part of what happens in policing, with respect to anyone wearing a camera, is that people forget over time.
我认为，对于任何戴着相机的人来说，警务工作中发生的部分情况是，随着时间的推移，人们会忘记。
And partly, some of the causes of problems in policing aren’t that officers are intentionally misbehaving.
在某种程度上，警务工作中出现问题的部分原因并不是警察故意行为不当。
Sometimes they’re not being as cautious as they should be or not as polite as they should be.
有时他们没有应有的谨慎或没有应有的礼貌。
But often it’s about the broader incentives they face.
但往往与他们面临的更广泛的激励有关。
If a department doesn’t care if you’re polite or not, putting on a camera isn’t going to make you more polite.
如果一个部门不在乎你是否有礼貌，那么戴上摄像头并不会让你更有礼貌。
There would have to be standards.
必须有标准。
There’d have to be consequences.
必然会有后果。
Officers have to have the motivation to behave differently, and they have to have the capacity to behave differently.
官员必须有采取不同行为的动机，也必须有能力采取不同的行为。
Do we have too many separate police departments?
我们是否有太多独立的警察部门？
You mentioned the number of different departments as an obstacle to collecting data.
您提到不同部门的数量是收集数据的障碍。
Should there be more consolidation?
是否应该进行更多整合？
Sure.
当然。
There are advantages and disadvantages to consolidation.
整合有优点也有缺点。
I said 18,000.
我说18000。
That’s actually not the best, most recent number.
这实际上不是最好的、最新的数字。
It’s probably a little more than 12,000 local departments.
地方部门可能略多于 12,000 个。
About half of those are fewer than 10 guys.
其中大约一半的人少于 10 人。
Now, we talk about police accountability and having use-of-force policies and disciplinary structures, but in an office of 10 guys, none of that matters.
现在，我们谈论警察问责制以及使用武力的政策和纪律结构，但在一个 10 个人的办公室里，这些都不重要。
So I think some consolidation would be extremely valuable because these very small departments just can’t maintain the kinds of standards that we might want.
因此，我认为一些整合将非常有价值，因为这些非常小的部门无法维持我们可能想要的那种标准。
But I don’t think consolidation is the solution to all problems in policing, and consolidation has costs as well as benefits because it means that, as communities get more diverse, segments of the community might not get what they want out of policing.
但我不认为整合是解决警务中所有问题的方法，整合既有成本也有好处，因为这意味着，随着社区变得更加多样化，社区的某些部分可能无法从警务中得到他们想要的东西。
I believe that, right now, around one-eighth of police officers are women.
我相信，目前大约八分之一的警察是女性。
Should that percentage be higher as a way of addressing police misconduct?
作为解决警察不当行为的一种方式，这个百分比是否应该更高？
You might want it to be higher for other equity reasons; that’s fine.
出于其他股权原因，您可能希望它更高；没关系。
But in terms of people being happier with their police, would it help?
但就人们对警察的满意度而言，这会有帮助吗？
I’m not sure we know for sure.
我不确定我们是否确定。
The studies on gender show a little bit better effect than the studies on racial diversity in policing, and I think communities do value diverse police departments that reflect what the community looks like.
关于性别的研究比关于警务中种族多样性的研究显示出更好的效果，我认为社区确实重视反映社区面貌的多元化警察部门。
And certainly, women might help, but I don’t take diversity in policing to be a solution to problems in policing.
当然，女性可能会有所帮助，但我并不认为警务多元化可以解决警务问题。
I think it’s an end that we might pursue for other reasons.
我认为我们可能会出于其他原因追求这一目标。
But if I think of data on nonpolice behavior, for whatever reasons, women are much less violently aggressive than are men.
但如果我考虑一下非警察行为的数据，无论出于何种原因，女性的暴力攻击性远低于男性。
So you might think if the police force were half women, more or less, the cases we’re worried about would fall significantly.
因此，你可能会认为，如果警察队伍中有一半是女性，或多或少，我们担心的案件将会大幅减少。
If that’s not true, what’s your intuition for why not?
如果这不是真的，你的直觉是什么？
For one reason, police officers and regular people aren’t similarly situated with respect to violence.
出于一个原因，警察和普通人在暴力方面的处境并不相似。
I’m a very small person.
我是一个很小的人。
I’m only about 4’11” on a good day.
天气好的时候我的身高只有 4 英尺 11 英寸左右。
If you asked me why I don’t engage in more violence, well, maybe I don’t usually have the motivation to engage in violence, and maybe, even though I’ve done a little kickboxing, I’m probably going to lose most fights I’m in.
如果你问我为什么不参与更多的暴力，那么，也许我通常没有参与暴力的动机，也许，即使我做了一点跆拳道，我可能会输掉我参加的大多数战斗。
Police officers are armed, and they’re trained to use force, so there’s a difference.
警察配备武器，并且接受过使用武力的训练，所以这是有区别的。
Even if women are, on average, smaller, there’s still going to be a difference in their preparedness to use force to enforce a command.
即使女性平均体型较小，她们使用武力执行命令的准备程度仍然存在差异。
So I just don’t think we can infer from what we know about women participating in violence more generally that women are going to behave differently on the police force.
因此，我认为我们不能从我们对参与暴力的女性的了解中推断出女性在警察队伍中的表现会有所不同。
That doesn’t mean they won’t.
这并不意味着他们不会。
And again, it’s a little bit of research, but it’s not great, and I think police officers are situated differently with respect to force.
再说一次，这只是一点点研究，但还不是很好，而且我认为警察在武力方面的立场不同。
Should the Department of Justice have the right to file suit against police departments as they’ve had, I believe, what, since 1994?
司法部是否应该有权像自 1994 年以来那样对警察部门提起诉讼？
Yes.
是的。
Should they?
他们应该吗？
Is that a good idea?
这是个好主意吗？
Should they?
他们应该吗？
Yes, they should have the power to do that.
是的，他们应该有权力这样做。
Why?
为什么？
The lawsuits by the Justice Department for pattern or practices of unconstitutional conduct by a police department are important, both symbolically and practically.
司法部针对警察部门违宪行为的模式或做法提起的诉讼无论在象征意义上还是在实践上都很重要。
Now, those lawsuits have substantial costs as well as benefits.
现在，这些诉讼带来了巨大的成本和收益。
When the Justice Department has sued police departments in the past, those suits have been very expensive.
司法部过去起诉警察部门时，诉讼费用非常昂贵。
Some suits have worked better than others in terms of reform, and some of the reforms haven’t always lasted, so I don’t want to suggest that they are somehow a panacea to problems in policing
在改革方面，有些诉讼比其他诉讼效果更好，而有些改革并不总是持久，所以我不想说它们在某种程度上是解决警务问题的灵丹妙药
At the same time, they’ve done a lot to signal the federal government’s commitment to civil rights.
与此同时，他们做了很多事情来表明联邦政府对公民权利的承诺。
They have set national standards for departments that are interested in adopting best practices, and they have reformed some very big, very problematic departments.
他们为有兴趣采用最佳实践的部门制定了国家标准，并对一些规模很大、问题很大的部门进行了改革。
But, say, when the feds give money to state and local departments and enforce standards of accountability, there’s at least the risk that lowers local accountability, right?
但是，比如说，当联邦政府向州和地方部门提供资金并执行问责标准时，至少存在降低地方问责制的风险，对吗？
Does that always work out for the better when they give them money?
当他们给他们钱时，效果总是更好吗？
Well, most of the money we give to local police departments isn’t for accountability.
嗯，我们给当地警察部门的大部分钱并不是为了追究责任。
It’s to improve effectiveness in policing or to shift policing towards national priorities that might not be adequately addressed at the local level.
这是为了提高警务效率，或将警务工作转向国家优先事项，而这些事项在地方一级可能无法得到充分解决。
Local departments don’t have enough of an incentive to prepare against terrorism, except maybe New York, so we might fund them to make sure that we’re all on the same page.
地方部门没有足够的动力来准备反恐，也许纽约除外，所以我们可能会资助他们，以确保我们都达成共识。
There are some good reasons for federal programs, but the way those programs have been designed have not focused on accountability, and often they have given money directly to police departments or been structured in ways that incentivize harmful policing.
联邦计划有一些很好的理由，但这些计划的设计方式并没有注重问责制，而且它们通常直接向警察部门提供资金，或者以激励有害警务的方式构建。
In that way, when they do that, even if they make policing more effective, they can also make it more harmful and therefore less efficient and also undermine community control.
这样，当他们这样做时，即使他们使治安变得更加有效，他们也可能使其危害更大，从而降低效率，并且还会破坏社区控制。
What would be an example of incentivizing harmful policing through those subsidies?
通过这些补贴激励有害治安的例子是什么？
The Violence Against Women Act has an arrest program — it was traditionally known as the arrest program, recently renamed — which provides money to municipalities to increase the criminalization or criminal justice taking seriously violence against women — domestic violence, and stalking, and some other kinds of violence.
《针对妇女暴力法案》有一项逮捕计划——传统上称为逮捕计划，最近更名为——向市政当局提供资金，以加强对暴力侵害妇女行为的定罪或刑事司法，严肃对待针对妇女的暴力行为、家庭暴力、跟踪和其他一些类型的暴力行为。
That program specifically incentivizes arrests, and it incentivizes arrests even above prosecutions.
该计划特别鼓励逮捕，而且其鼓励逮捕的力度甚至高于起诉。
So it’s not that we’re saying we should take it seriously at sentencing.
因此，我们并不是说在量刑时应该认真对待。
We’re saying we should take it seriously when we see it; we should arrest it.
当我们看到它时，我们说我们应该认真对待它；我们应该逮捕它。
And it encourages departments to adopt pro-arrest policies and states to adopt pro-arrest laws.
它还鼓励各部门采取支持逮捕的政策，鼓励各州采取支持逮捕的法律。
But arresting people doesn’t necessarily protect public safety, and it does increase harm.
但逮捕人并不一定能保护公共安全，而且确实会增加伤害。
On changing selection criteria for police
关于改变警察选拔标准
Should we impose higher educational standards on police forces?
我们应该对警察部队施加更高的教育标准吗？
There’s mixed evidence on that.
这方面的证据好坏参半。
Slightly older police officers tend to be better in certain respects, at least, and education is often associated with age.
年龄稍大的警察至少在某些方面往往表现更好，而且教育程度往往与年龄有关。
But, again, I don’t think that we can select our way out of problems in policing.
但是，我再说一遍，我不认为我们可以选择解决治安问题的方法。
But why can’t we?
但为什么我们不能呢？
Because different individuals — they behave so differently.
因为不同的人 ——他们的行为如此不同。
They think so differently.
他们的想法很不同。
Why is it that there’s no change in selection criteria that would get the police to be more the way we want them to be, whatever that might be?
为什么选择标准没有改变，可以让警察更像我们希望的那样，无论那是什么？
I think we could do some things.
我想我们可以做一些事情。
We could screen out people who have committed misconduct in the past, for example, by decertifying them at the state level and therefore discouraging departments that can’t or don’t care very much about quality of their officers from hiring those officers.
例如，我们可以筛选出过去有不当行为的人，例如在州一级取消他们的资格，从而阻止那些不能或不太关心官员质量的部门雇用这些官员。
It’s not that we can’t select against problems in policing at all.
这并不是说我们根本不能选择解决治安问题。
Sometimes we know that an officer’s problematic, and still he’ll wander around from department to department.
有时我们知道某个官员有问题，但他仍然会在各个部门之间徘徊。
I think we should set minimum age standards that are above 18, which many states have as a minimum age standard.
我认为我们应该设定 18 岁以上的最低年龄标准，许多州都将其作为最低年龄标准。
But in terms of education or other more subtle factors, I think the effects can often be subtle, and when we look at what creates problems in policing, departments create officers.
但就教育或其他更微妙的因素而言，我认为其影响往往是微妙的，当我们审视是什么在警务中造成问题时，部门会创造官员。
The officers don’t preexist a department, really, so what you’re really looking at is the culture of the department, the incentive structures, the supervision, discipline.
事实上，官员并不先于一个部门而存在，所以你真正关注的是部门的文化、激励结构、监督和纪律。
You can make good officers with imperfect people.
你可以用不完美的人来培养优秀的官员。
Say many more of the police were 67-year-old women, and they were short.
假设更多的警察是 67 岁的女性，而且她们身材矮小。
Obviously, there’s an issue.
显然，有一个问题。
They might be more willing to use their guns because they would feel physically more endangered.
他们可能更愿意使用枪支，因为他们会感到身体更加危险。
But wouldn’t it just be highly likely that in terms of misbehavior, there would be less of it just by changing the composition?
但就不良行为而言，仅仅改变成分，是不是很可能就会减少呢？
It seems true for every other job we know.
对于我们所知道的所有其他工作来说似乎都是如此。
Yeah, maybe.
是的，也许吧。
But even there — I’m not 67 yet, but I’m on my way.
但即便如此 — 我还不到 67 岁，但我已经在路上了。
If you tell me that I have to complete every call in 90 seconds, and I face somebody who is holding a knife and clearly in a mental health crisis, I have two options.
如果你告诉我，我必须在 90 秒内完成每个电话，而我面对的是一个拿着刀、显然处于心理健康危机的人，我有两个选择。
I can wait and talk and see if I can de-escalate the situation, or I can tase him and be done with it.
我可以等待并交谈，看看是否可以缓和局势，或者我可以嘲笑他并结束这件事。
And even a 67-year-old woman is going to respond to incentives about how she’s supposed to handle that situation.
即使是 67 岁的女性也会对她应该如何处理这种情况的激励做出反应。
If you rush her, she’ll tase them.
如果你催她，她会咬它们。
If you tell me that I have to complete every call in 90 seconds, and I face somebody who is holding a knife and clearly in a mental health crisis, I have two options.
如果你告诉我，我必须在 90 秒内完成每个电话，而我面对的是一个拿着刀、显然处于心理健康危机的人，我有两个选择。
I can wait and talk and see if I can de-escalate the situation, or I can tase him and be done with it.
我可以等待并交谈，看看是否可以缓和局势，或者我可以嘲笑他并结束这件事。
And even a 67-year-old woman is going to respond to incentives about how she’s supposed to handle that situation.
即使是 67 岁的女性也会对她应该如何处理这种情况的激励做出反应。
If you rush her, she’ll tase them.
如果你催促她，她会嘲笑他们。
So what’s the incentive, then, we should change, if composition and selection won’t do it?
那么，如果组合和选择不起作用，那么我们应该改变的动机是什么？
I’m not saying it’s not that they won’t help.
我并不是说他们不会提供帮助。
You could help with education.
你可以在教育方面提供帮助。
You could help with diversification, and diversity might help in policing, like women because they break up the subcultures in a police department that can reinforce bad behavior.
你可以帮助实现多元化，而多元化可能有助于警务工作，就像女性一样，因为她们打破了警察部门中可能强化不良行为的亚文化。
I actually think having women present helps — even if the women aren’t less violent — just by reducing the uniformity of the culture.
事实上，我认为有女性在场会有所帮助——“即使女性的暴力程度并没有减少”——只是通过减少文化的统一性。
So I don’t want to say those things don’t matter at all.
所以我不想说这些事情根本不重要。
But I think the capacity to solve problems without force and the motivation to do so matter at least as much, if not more, and so what we have to do is give officers that capacity.
但我认为，不使用武力解决问题的能力和这样做的动机至少同样重要，甚至更重要，因此我们要做的就是赋予官员这种能力。
I wish we had more evidence about de-escalation training and about implicit bias training and the like.
我希望我们有更多关于降级培训和隐性偏见培训等的证据。
We don’t, so we don’t know that that stuff works, at least not yet.
我们不知道，所以我们不知道这些东西是否有效，至少现在还不行。
But hopefully we can study these things and develop mechanisms to have alternatives, to empower officers to use alternatives, and then give them the backup, the time, if necessary, the cover, to engage in less forceful responses.
但希望我们能够研究这些事情并制定机制来寻找替代方案，授权官员使用替代方案，然后为他们提供后援、时间（如有必要）和掩护，以采取不那么强硬的应对措施。
Let’s say we doubled the number of people in the active police force.
假设我们将现役警察队伍的人数增加了一倍。
Is it possible, then, misconduct would go down?
那么，不当行为有可能减少吗？
Everyone’s not so rushed.
大家都没有那么着急。
There’s a greater sense you can do things properly.
你会更强烈地感觉到你可以正确地做事。
It depends what you do with them.
这取决于你用它们做什么。
You could double the number of police officers just to make things far worse if what they’re doing is going out onto the street and jacking people up, throwing them against the wall, frisking them, and the like.
如果警察的数量是到街上把人们举起来、把他们扔到墙上、搜身等等，那么你可以把警察的数量增加一倍，这只会让事情变得更糟。
So it really depends what you do with the officers you have.
所以这实际上取决于你如何对待你所拥有的官员。
One of the things is we just don’t have a lot of good research.
其中之一是我们没有太多好的研究。
We do have some research that suggests if you add officers to a department, public safety gets better, even if arrests don’t go up.
我们确实有一些研究表明，如果在某个部门增加警员，即使逮捕人数没有增加，公共安全也会变得更好。
So the presence of officers as a sentinel to discourage misconduct or to discourage crime actually works pretty well.
因此，警察作为哨兵来阻止不当行为或阻止犯罪实际上效果很好。
But what we don’t know is whether adding those police officers also increases harm, and so we don’t know if doubling a police force actually makes things far worse or far better.
但我们不知道的是，增加警察数量是否也会增加伤害，因此我们不知道增加警察力量是否真的会让事情变得更糟还是更好。
Conceptually, what do you view as the fundamental constraint in the system?
从概念上讲，您认为系统中的基本约束是什么？
Someone might say, “Well, it’s too hard to watch police officers.” But body cams — it’s not clear they’ll work.
有人可能会说：“嗯，看警察太难了。”但随身摄像头 ——尚不清楚它们是否有效。
Whom we pick — it’s not obvious that’s the lever of progress.
我们选择谁 ——这并不明显是进步的杠杆。
What’s the actual constraint you would like to be able to control better?
您希望能够更好地控制的实际约束是什么？
Yeah, I’m not a big believer in silver bullets.
是的，我不太相信灵丹妙药。
I don’t think there is a single constraint.
我认为没有任何限制。
We have been struggling with balancing the harms and benefits of policing since we started contemporary departments, so I don’t think that we’re going to suddenly fix this by flipping one lever.
自从我们成立当代部门以来，我们一直在努力平衡治安的利弊，所以我不认为我们会通过翻转一个杠杆来突然解决这个问题。
I think that one thing that we could do is facilitate better accountability in policing.
我认为我们可以做的一件事就是促进更好的警务问责制。
And what I mean by that is, if you think about policing or accountability that an officer would be responsive to standards, he would have to explain his behavior, and he’d face consequences when he didn’t live up to those standards.
我的意思是，如果你考虑到警务或问责制，一名警官会对标准做出反应，他就必须解释自己的行为，而当他不遵守这些标准时，他将面临后果。
Those standards should reflect the full costs and benefits of policing so that we set rules for policing that actually get what we want out of policing.
这些标准应该反映警务的全部成本和收益，以便我们制定警务规则，真正从警务中得到我们想要的东西。
Those standards won’t reflect those rules if we don’t know what the costs of policing are, and that means hearing from the members of the community on whom we tend to concentrate the costs of policing.
如果我们不知道治安成本是多少，那么这些标准就不会反映这些规则，这意味着我们倾向于听取社区成员的意见，而我们倾向于将治安成本集中在他们身上。
Then we have to make sure that police are, in fact, accountable, that they do have to explain their behavior — which means we would know what they were doing — and that they face consequences when they don’t live up to expectations.
然后我们必须确保警察确实负起责任，他们必须解释自己的行为——这意味着我们会知道他们在做什么——并且当他们没有达到预期时，他们将面临后果。
If we paid law professors 50 percent more, we’d probably get more good people wanting to be law professors.
如果我们给法学教授的工资增加 50%，我们可能会吸引更多优秀的人想成为法学教授。
Should we pay police 50 percent more?
我们应该给警察多付 50% 的钱吗？
I think it’s clear that when we reduce police salaries a lot — as you see in some small departments and in poorer communities — then police quality goes down because you start getting officers with records of misconduct and the like, so we don’t want salaries to go too low.
我认为很明显，当我们大幅减少警察工资时——正如你在一些小部门和较贫困社区看到的那样，警察的质量就会下降，因为你开始让有不当行为记录等的警察，所以我们不希望工资降得太低。
But I don’t know that if we doubled salaries or raised them 50 percent that we’d get radically higher-quality police officers.
但我不知道如果我们把工资加倍或提高 50%，我们是否会得到素质更高的警察。
I’m open to it.
我对此持开放态度。
We could have a Police for America program like we have a Teach for America program, and kids out of Harvard would then go police in big cities and small towns for three years.
我们可以有一个“为美国警察”项目，就像我们有“为美国而教”项目一样，哈佛毕业的孩子们可以在大城市和小城镇当警察三年。
I’m open to trying almost anything as an alternative, but I don’t think we know that raising salaries is going to make things better in policing.
我愿意尝试几乎所有的替代方案，但我认为我们不知道提高工资会让警务工作变得更好。
I think there are about as many social workers as there are police.
我认为社会工作者的数量与警察的数量差不多。
Should we take a third of those social workers and, in essence, reallocate them to police work, paying them more if we have to?
我们是否应该把三分之一的社会工作者从本质上重新分配给警察工作，如果必要的话给他们更高的工资？
Sure.
当然。
There are some aspects of what police departments are expected to do now that would be better handled by social workers who are trained to deal with people in crisis, whether there’s a substance abuse or a mental health crisis or other social services needs, like people without housing and the like, and so we dump a lot of that on police departments.
警察部门现在要做的某些方面的工作，可以由接受过处理危机人群培训的社会工作者来更好地处理，无论是药物滥用、心理健康危机还是其他社会服务需求，比如没有住房的人等等，所以我们把很多工作交给了警察部门。
There are some aspects of what police departments are expected to do now that would be better handled by social workers who are trained to deal with people in crisis.
警察部门现在要做的某些方面的工作，最好由接受过处理危机人群培训的社会工作者来处理。
There is no police department in America who wouldn’t say what we need is more mental health services, because mental health services would prevent the crises.
美国所有警察部门都会说我们需要更多的心理健康服务，因为心理健康服务可以预防危机。
And if we had more social workers responding to those crises, either with law enforcement or without, depending on the nature of the crisis, we might get more effective policing.
如果我们有更多的社会工作者来应对这些危机，无论是有执法部门还是没有执法部门，这取决于危机的性质，我们可能会得到更有效的治安。
Yeah, sure.
是的，当然。
What about mandatory therapist visits for each policeman or woman?
每位警察或女性都必须接受治疗师拜访怎么样？
I don’t know about mandatory therapist visits, but I would say that we have to prioritize the health and well-being of police officers because police officers who are overly stressed or who are hurt physically or mentally are more likely to hurt others.
我不知道强制治疗师就诊的情况，但我想说，我们必须优先考虑警察的健康和福祉，因为压力过大或身心受到伤害的警察更有可能伤害他人。
So we have to take seriously officer well-being.
因此，我们必须认真对待官员的福祉。
Now, what that means can be complicated.
现在，这意味着什么可能很复杂。
We want our officers to be able to get the therapy services they need.
我们希望我们的官员能够获得他们需要的治疗服务。
Often peer services work better.
同行服务通常效果更好。
Some departments are looking to the military model for increasing well-being because officer suicides are a huge problem right now.
一些部门正在寻求军事模式来增加福祉，因为军官自杀现在是一个大问题。
But we also want to make sure that an officer who is potentially in crisis or harmful to others isn’t on the street.
但我们也想确保可能陷入危机或对他人造成伤害的警官不会出现在街上。
States are struggling with the tradeoffs between protecting officers to make sure they seek the help they need and ensuring that officers are removed if they are risky to others.
各州正在努力权衡保护官员以确保他们寻求所需的帮助，并确保官员在对他人构成危险时被撤职。
On sexual assault by police
关于警察的性侵犯
You spent quite a few years working on the issue of sexual assault by police, right?
您花了很多年的时间来研究警察性侵犯问题，对吧？
What’s the main thing the American public does not know about that topic?
关于这个话题，美国公众不知道的主要事情是什么？
I don’t think they realize how common sexual assaults by police are, how unlikely they are to be reported, and then how difficult they are to prove once they are reported.
我认为他们没有意识到警察的性侵犯是多么普遍，它们被举报的可能性是多么小，而且一旦被举报，要证明它们是多么困难。
I prosecuted cases involving police misconduct for the Department of Justice, and one of the big issues in some of the sexual assault cases I did was that the first complaint, the second complaint, the third complaint would come in.
我为司法部起诉了涉及警察不当行为的案件，我所做的一些性侵犯案件中的一个大问题是，第一个投诉、第二个投诉、第三个投诉都会进来。
They would come in sporadically.
他们会零星地进来。
It would be “he said, she said.”
这将是“他说，她说”。
The department would investigate, decide that there was no evidence to support the woman’s claim, and the officer would go about his business.
该部门将进行调查，并认定没有证据支持该妇女的说法，然后该官员将继续处理他的事情。
The women more often had credibility problems.
女性更容易出现信誉问题。
They might be felons.
他们可能是重罪犯。
They might be prostitutes with drug habits, runaways.
她们可能是有吸毒习惯的妓女、逃亡者。
But over time, what you would see is a department never vindicating those claims, never investigating them thoroughly enough.
但随着时间的推移，你会看到一个部门永远不会证实这些说法，也永远不会对它们进行足够彻底的调查。
When you would look at these cases and start actually seriously investigating, you’d realize that actually, this officer had done it dozens of times.
当你看到这些案件并开始认真调查时，你会发现这个官员实际上已经做过几十次了。
Some of them might be beyond the statute of limitations.
其中一些可能超出了诉讼时效。
Some of the women might have serious credibility issues.
有些女性可能存在严重的信誉问题。
But you’d get enough that in some cases, I had more than a dozen prosecutable incidents involving sexual abuse by an officer, some of which there had been complaints about, but only some, and none of those had been recognized as legitimate.
但你已经足够了，在某些情况下，我有十多起涉及一名警官性虐待的可起诉事件，其中一些受到了投诉，但只有一些，而且没有一个被认为是合法的。
Even the Justice Department — it would often close the case at least once before I got it.
即使是司法部——在我接到案件之前，它也经常会至少结案一次。
So it’s very hard to see how big the problem is or to investigate and handle those cases.
所以很难看出问题有多大，也很难调查和处理这些案件。
What should we do to improve that problem?
我们应该怎样做才能改善这个问题呢？
Diversifying police departments with respect to gender might help that problem.
警察部门在性别方面的多元化可能有助于解决这个问题。
I don’t know, but police officers —
我不知道，但是警察们 ——
Yeah, it almost certainly would, right?
是的，几乎肯定会，对吧？
Yeah, I can only think.
是啊，我只能想想。
What we don’t want is police officers to be alone or with somebody else or with other people that they can rely on not to report misconduct.
我们不希望警察单独行动，或者与其他人在一起，或者与其他他们可以信赖的不举报不当行为的人在一起。
That means officers have to have the duty to report misconduct with respect to each other, and we have to have a culture interior to departments that facilitates that happening.
这意味着官员必须有责任举报彼此的不当行为，而且我们必须在各部门内部建立一种促进这种行为发生的文化。
Uses of force are often hard to determine whether they’re legal or illegal, whether it was appropriate or inappropriate.
使用武力通常很难确定其是否合法或非法，是否适当或不适当。
There’s no question that sex between a police officer and somebody he’s just arrested is wrong.
毫无疑问，警察和他刚刚被捕的人之间的性行为是错误的。
That is just pure bad, and so we should never have a situation in which another officer has information or evidence or has witnessed such a thing and is unwilling to report it.
这纯粹是坏事，所以我们永远不应该出现另一名警官掌握信息或证据或目击此类事件但不愿报告的情况。
But it’s often legal, correct?
但这通常是合法的，对吗？
Yeah, in some places.
是的，在某些地方。
It depends what you mean by legal.
这取决于你所说的法律是什么意思。
It is not unconstitutional.
这并不违宪。
In some states, consensual sex between an officer and a person in custody is not illegal, and so it depends in part on whether it’s nonconsensual.
在一些州，警官和被拘留者之间自愿的性行为并不违法，因此这在一定程度上取决于是否是非自愿的。
In other places, custodial sex with somebody in custody is illegal, so it varies.
在其他地方，与被拘留者发生羁押性行为是非法的，因此情况各不相同。
But if it’s nonconsensual, it’s always illegal.
但如果未经同意，则始终是非法的。
I would think, in a sense, it can never be consensual.
我认为，从某种意义上说，它永远不可能是双方同意的。
Yeah, that’s true.
是的，确实如此。
In fact, one of the problems that we had in federal cases involving sexual misconduct or sexual abuse is that you would have to prove force to prove a felony, but officers don’t have to use force, and they don’t even have to explicitly threaten force.
事实上，我们在涉及不当性行为或性虐待的联邦案件中遇到的问题之一是，你必须证明武力才能证明重罪，但警察不必使用武力，他们甚至不必明确威胁使用武力。
They control the situation.
他们控制着局势。
The person is under arrest.
该人已被捕。
They’re wearing a gun, and they express and act as if they’re invincible.
他们戴着枪，他们的表现和行为就好像他们是无敌的。
And often, the women who are abused are carefully chosen to believe that they are.
通常，遭受虐待的女性都是经过精心挑选的，她们相信自己确实受到了虐待。
They know because they’ve been arrested before, and they know because they have a criminal history.
他们知道，因为他们以前被捕过，他们知道，因为他们有犯罪记录。
They know because .
他们知道，因为。
.
。
.
。
I had one case involving someone who directed a halfway house, and the women had to have sex with him in order to see their children because he could affect their probation status, and if they got their probation revoked or ended up back in jail, they wouldn’t see their children anymore.
我遇到过一个案例，涉及一个中途之家的负责人，这些妇女必须与他发生性关系才能见到她们的孩子，因为他可能会影响她们的缓刑状态，如果她们的缓刑被撤销或最终重新入狱，她们就再也见不到自己的孩子了。
He picked them pretty carefully.
他非常仔细地挑选它们。
So yeah, they don’t always need force, and we might need laws to better protect against that.
所以，是的，他们并不总是需要武力，我们可能需要法律来更好地防范这种情况。
On the most cost-effective policing reforms
关于最具成本效益的警务改革
If I think of this problem in its most general form, let’s say we agree that having more policemen doing the right thing is a high positive social return, so we don’t just want to discourage the police from engaging flat out.
如果我以最普遍的形式来思考这个问题，那么我们就同意让更多的警察做正确的事情会带来很高的积极社会回报，所以我们不仅仅是想阻止警察全力参与。
Right.
正确的。
At the same time, there are many instances of misconduct.
与此同时，违规行为也屡见不鲜。
It seems hard to limit them through a number of mechanisms that I’ve been suggesting.
似乎很难通过我一直建议的一些机制来限制它们。
So what is the most cost-effective intervention that will improve the quality of policing, but without just limiting the number of engagements?
那么，什么是最具成本效益的干预措施，既能提高警务质量，又不会限制参与的数量呢？
I don’t know.
我不知道。
The most cost-effective intervention to improve the quality of policing without limiting engagement — I don’t know.
在不限制参与的情况下提高警务质量的最具成本效益的干预措施 —— 我不知道。
I don’t know that I can think of a single intervention.
我不知道我能想到单一的干预措施。
If you think about particular interventions, I can tell you how they might affect that equation, but there are a lot of forces acting on policing.
如果你考虑特定的干预措施，我可以告诉你它们可能如何影响这个方程式，但是有很多力量在影响治安。
For example, people talk about civil damages actions, and one of the things about civil damages action is they worry about indemnification.
例如，人们谈论民事损害赔偿诉讼，而民事损害赔偿诉讼的其中一件事是他们担心赔偿。
Indemnification is when the city pays, even though the officer gets the judgment against him, and people object to this because they think the officer should be punished more.
赔偿是指城市支付费用，即使该官员得到了对他不利的判决，但人们反对这一点，因为他们认为该官员应该受到更严厉的惩罚。
But I’m actually pro-indemnification, because I think if the city pays, then as long as we make that payment transparent so we don’t have nondisclosure agreements, then we can act, and we also collect data on it.
但我实际上支持赔偿，因为我认为如果市政府支付费用，那么只要我们使支付透明，这样我们就没有保密协议，那么我们就可以采取行动，并且我们还收集相关数据。
Then a community could actually say, “Hey, I don’t want my taxes to go up because you idiots won’t train and prepare officers and discipline them and supervise them so that they do less of this.”
然后，社区实际上可以说：“嘿，我不想让我的税收增加，因为你们这些白痴不会训练和准备官员，不会对他们进行纪律和监督，以便他们少做这种事。”
So we want the costs to be internalized.
所以我们希望成本内部化。
There are a lot of different ways to ensure that we internalize the cost of policing — making them more visible, making them experienced by the political actors who are going to make decisions about hiring and firing police chiefs, about setting policy for police departments.
有很多不同的方法可以确保我们将治安成本内部化——让这些成本更加明显，让那些将要做出聘用和解雇警察局长、为警察部门制定政策的决策的政治参与者体验到这些成本。
I think the more we internalize the full costs of policing and make sure they’re fairly distributed, the better policing will be.
我认为，我们越是内部化治安的全部成本并确保它们公平分配，治安就会越好。
There are other countries that are very different.
还有其他国家的情况非常不同。
An extreme example would be Norway.
一个极端的例子是挪威。
I’m not saying we can be like Norway, right?
我并不是说我们可以像挪威一样，对吗？
We’re a very different country.
我们是一个非常不同的国家。
But if you’re Rachel Harmon, dictator of all matters police, and you’re allowed to make one change that will last after you’re gone, what would that be?
但如果你是雷切尔·哈蒙（Rachel Harmon），警察所有事务的独裁者，并且你被允许做出一项在你离开后仍将持续的改变，那会是什么？
I think setting up some national standards so that we not only have a federal intervention in making police more effective or federal intervention in suing police departments and prosecuting police officers, but national standards for ensuring that policing is actually beneficial, that we’re harm minimizing, that it’s fair, and that it’s authorized by local communities.
我认为制定一些国家标准，这样我们不仅可以通过联邦干预来提高警察的效率，或者联邦干预起诉警察部门和起诉警察，而且还可以制定国家标准来确保警务工作实际上是有益的，我们将伤害最小化，这是公平的，并且得到了当地社区的授权。
Given that we do operate policing the way we do, which is in lots and lots of departments, having some shared national standards, the way England does it, might help a lot, even if we continue to organize policing the way we do.
鉴于我们确实以我们的方式运作警务，即在很多很多部门中，有一些共同的国家标准，就像英国的做法一样，即使我们继续以我们的方式组织警务，也可能会有很大帮助。
If a department doesn’t meet those standards, do you take away money, put them into receivership, something else?
如果一个部门不符合这些标准，你会拿走钱，将他们置于破产管理之下，还是采取其他措施？
What do you do?
你做什么工作？
There are different proposals for that.
对此有不同的建议。
Right now, people are talking about an accreditation system where departments would seek to be accredited by meeting national standards.
现在，人们正在谈论一个认证体系，各部门将通过满足国家标准来寻求获得认证。
You could penalize them by taking away money for things that they want, but that has, again, cost and benefits, and over time, the federal government has been totally unwilling to do that.
你可以通过拿走他们想要的东西的钱来惩罚他们，但这又是有成本和收益的，随着时间的推移，联邦政府完全不愿意这样做。
It’s basically not used money as a tool for ensuring police accountability.
它基本上不使用金钱作为确保警察问责的工具。
I don’t know if there’s one way to do it, but there are several ways to do it, and I think partly, communities have to do it themselves.
我不知道是否只有一种方法可以做到这一点，但有多种方法可以做到这一点，而且我认为部分社区必须自己做。
That is to say, once we have national standards out there, communities can hold their own departments accountable for not meeting them.
也就是说，一旦有了国家标准，社区就可以让自己的部门对不符合标准的行为负责。
On the improved policing in Camden and elsewhere
关于卡姆登和其他地方警务工作的改善
Camden, Trenton, and Newark seem to have improved the quality of their police from what we can tell.
据我们所知，卡姆登、特伦顿和纽瓦克的警察素质似乎有所提高。
Are there lessons we can draw from those examples?
我们可以从这些例子中吸取教训吗？
Those are tough cities, right?
这些都是艰难的城市，对吗？
Yeah, they are.
是的，他们是。
One thing is the value of innovative leadership.
一件事是创新领导力的价值。
Scott Thomson in Camden did a lot of good and thought seriously about the problems and engaged all of the different participants — both communities, the officers.
卡姆登的斯科特·汤姆森做了很多好事，认真思考了问题，并吸引了所有不同的参与者——社区和官员。
He put out a new use-of-force policy last year, which is probably the most progressive in the country, based in part on work that the ALI did, the American Law Institute did, and I’ve been involved in that work.
他去年推出了一项新的使用武力政策，这可能是该国最进步的政策，部分基于 ALI 和美国法律研究所所做的工作，而我也参与了这项工作。
I helped draft those principles.
我帮助起草了这些原则。
He did that by getting everyone to the table and getting buy-in from everyone involved, and that’s a lot more likely to have success, lasting success.
他通过让每个人都参与进来并获得每个参与者的支持来做到这一点，这更有可能取得成功，持久的成功。
So leadership matters.
所以领导力很重要。
Buy-in matters.
买入很重要。
He also had a little more power to restructure the department from the ground up.
他还有更多的权力从头开始重组该部门。
One of the problems that people have had when we might get a new leader in a department who wants to reform the department, but the culture of the department is resistant to change, and they know that the guy’s likely to be fired within a year anyway, so they can just wait him out.
人们遇到的一个问题是，我们可能在一个部门找到一位想要改革该部门的新领导，但该部门的文化抵制变革，而且他们知道这个人无论如何都可能在一年内被解雇，所以他们只能等待他下台。
So you can often have trouble penetrating department culture.
因此，你常常很难理解部门文化。
One of the things that happened in Camden is they were rebuilding a department from the ground up, and that gave them a lot of power to make things a little bit better.
卡姆登发生的事情之一是他们正在从头开始重建一个部门，这给了他们很大的权力让事情变得更好一些。
So dismantling resistance to change actually helps a lot, too.
因此，消除对变革的抵制实际上也有很大帮助。
Those are some of the factors.
这些是其中一些因素。
I’m terrible because I’ll never give you a “Yep, here’s the answer and it’s easy.” I just don’t have it.
我很糟糕，因为我永远不会给你一个“是的，这就是答案，而且很简单”。我只是没有。
That’s good.
那挺好的。
The people who give that are terrible, I would say.
我想说，提供这些的人很糟糕。
Minneapolis at least claimed —
明尼阿波利斯至少声称 ——
Unless you ask me about civil asset forfeiture, and then I’ll just tell you it’s all bad.
除非你问我关于没收民事资产的问题，然后我只会告诉你这很糟糕。
Yes, that’s an easy one.
是的，这很简单。
Minneapolis claims that it will be dismantling its police department, but this, of course, will be under intense glare and scrutiny as a national issue.
明尼阿波利斯声称将解散警察局，但这当然将作为一个全国性问题受到强烈关注和审查。
Is that likely to go the route of Camden and be a positive?
这是否有可能走卡姆登的路线并且是积极的？
Or what’s your intuition on that case?
或者你对此案的直觉是什么？
I don’t know.
我不知道。
Minneapolis has known it’s had some problems for several years.
明尼阿波利斯多年来一直知道自己存在一些问题。
Minnesota has had some hearings.
明尼苏达州已经举行了一些听证会。
Minneapolis has tried to do some reforms and they haven’t, even after some high-profile events — not as high profile as what’s going on now, for sure, but some high-profile, salient events — they were unable to generate the kind of change that would make a difference, at least significantly so.
明尼阿波利斯曾试图进行一些改革，但他们没有这样做，即使在发生了一些引人注目的事件之后——当然，不像现在发生的那么引人注目，但也发生了一些引人注目的重大事件——他们无法产生那种能够产生影响的改变，至少是显着的改变。
And they have on paper some of the formal reforms that people often demand in policing.
他们还提出了人们在警务领域经常要求的一些正式改革。
I don’t know enough about what’s going on on the ground.
我对当地发生的事情了解不够。
One of the things about police institutions is that they are local institutions.
警察机构的特点之一是它们是地方机构。
So you have to know a lot about what’s going on in a community to know how likely they are to change.
因此，您必须对社区中正在发生的事情有很多了解，才能知道它们发生变化的可能性有多大。
How much of the problems with American police are just correlated with the problems of the citizens?
美国警察的问题有多少与公民的问题相关？
If you had a town where just literally everyone was completely nice, would police brutality be a major issue?
如果你有一个小镇，那里的每个人都非常友善，那么警察的暴行会成为一个主要问题吗？
There are a lot of ways to prevent police — call it brutality.
有很多方法可以阻止警察的暴力行为。
Let’s call it violence or just a use of force.
我们称之为暴力或只是使用武力。
Let’s say all uses of force — it would be better if no uses of force happened.
假设所有使用武力 ——如果不使用武力会更好。
Now, we could prevent them by preventing the underlying problems that police respond to.
现在，我们可以通过预防警方应对的根本问题来预防它们。
We could do education, and have economic development, and provide mental health services.
我们可以做教育、发展经济、提供心理健康服务。
And then police will respond to far fewer problems, and things would be better.
然后警察会对更少的问题做出反应，事情会更好。
We could re-identify problems and tolerate a little bit more disorder.
我们可以重新识别问题并容忍更多的混乱。
Maybe a police officer doesn’t have to break up a loud party, and then he won’t have to arrest the people involved.
也许警察不必驱散一场喧闹的聚会，然后他就不必逮捕相关人员。
So we could do that.
所以我们可以这么做。
We could encourage people to react differently to the police.
我们可以鼓励人们对警察做出不同的反应。
If people trust the police in your nice town where people believe that the police are there to help, not to hurt, where police are not being aggressive towards them, they might be far more likely to respond to just a mere request.
如果人们信任你所在小镇的警察，人们相信警察是来帮助而不是伤害，警察不会对他们采取攻击性行为，那么他们可能更有可能只回应一个请求。
“You know what, why don’t you turn the music down?” And they would say, “Fine.”
“你知道吗，为什么不把音乐关小声呢？”他们会说：“好吧。”
You could do all those things and help improve policing, sure.
当然，你可以做所有这些事情并帮助改善治安。
And then at the end of the day, the police officers in your nice town might also be likely to wait out people who are noncompliant or look for alternatives because in a nice town, that’s what people do.
然后在一天结束时，你所在的好城镇的警察也可能会等待不服从的人或寻找替代方案，因为在一个好城镇，这就是人们所做的。
So I think niceness could help, but thinking about how it could help is really what matters.
所以我认为友善会有所帮助，但思考它如何能有所帮助才是真正重要的。
How do we limit the number of police who lie at trial, or lie to back up their peers, or somehow just outright refuse to play by the legal rules of the game, telling the truth?
我们如何限制在审判中撒谎、或为支持同行而撒谎、或以某种方式完全拒绝遵守法律游戏规则、说实话的警察数量？
We impose consequences.
我们强加后果。
Right now, there are almost no consequences for police officers who lie.
目前，撒谎的警察几乎不会承担任何后果。
If a judge thinks that a police officer lies in a suppression motion, he will maybe suppress the evidence if the truth indicates that the search or the seizure was illegal.
如果法官认为警察在压制动议中撒谎，如果事实表明搜查或扣押是非法的，他可能会压制证据。
But that’s hardly much of a penalty.
但这算不上什么惩罚。
A police officer engages in an illegal search.
一名警察正在进行非法搜查。
Then he lies at trial, taking the chance that he might get it in.
然后他在审判中撒谎，趁着可能入狱的机会。
At worst, the only outcome is what would have happened if he had told the truth.
最坏的情况下，唯一的结果就是如果他说实话的话会发生什么。
So I don’t think that’s a very effective incentive.
所以我认为这不是一个非常有效的激励措施。
Departments, when officers do lie at trial, often don’t take steps.
当官员在审判中撒谎时，各部门通常不会采取措施。
And sometimes when officers admit that they were under pressure to lie or that they did lie, they learn very quickly that admitting a lie is much more problematic than lying.
有时，当警察承认他们迫于压力而撒谎或确实撒谎时，他们很快就会意识到承认谎言比撒谎更成问题。
That’s the problem that really is internal to departments.
这确实是部门内部的问题。
In some cities, there’s a culture of more reporting than in others.
在一些城市，存在着比其他城市更多的报告文化。
That’s something that departments can do to facilitate truthfulness and policing.
这是各部门可以采取的措施来促进真相和治安。
But expecting truthfulness would go a long way to improving it.
但期待真实性会对改善它大有帮助。
On whether curtailing arrests is a good idea
关于减少逮捕是否是一个好主意
Here’s a question from a reader, and I quote, “The author advocates curtailing arrests, but in places we’ve seen this, it has resulted in absolute bedlam: San Francisco, Seattle, New York.
这是一位读者提出的问题，我引用一下：“作者主张减少逮捕，但在我们已经看到的地方，这导致了绝对的混乱：旧金山、西雅图、纽约。
Where were the leading examples that have delivered better outcomes?” End quote.
取得更好成果的领先范例在哪里？”结束报价。
I don’t accept the premise that reducing arrests .
我不接受减少逮捕的前提。
.
。
.
。
First of all, I’m not sure all those cities have reduced arrests.
首先，我不确定所有这些城市都减少了逮捕人数。
Certainly, Seattle and New York have.
当然，西雅图和纽约有。
I don’t know the numbers in San Francisco, but in New York, we dramatically dropped arrests for misdemeanor offenses without a substantial increase in crime.
我不知道旧金山的数字，但在纽约，我们大幅减少了对轻罪的逮捕，而犯罪率却没有大幅增加。
I’m not sure that I would call that absolute bedlam.
我不确定我是否会称之为绝对的混乱。
You’d have to convince me.
你必须说服我。
I look at everything the same way, which is, is it effective at producing the goals, which are public safety and public order?
我以同样的方式看待一切，即它是否有效地实现了公共安全和公共秩序的目标？
Is it beneficial in the sense that the costs don’t outweigh the benefits?
从成本不超过收益的意义上来说，它是否有益？
Is it efficient in the sense that there’s no less harmful alternative?
从没有危害较小的替代方案的意义上来说，它是否有效？
Is it fairly distributed?
分布是否公平？
I think arrests, to a large degree, fail those tasks.
我认为逮捕在很大程度上未能完成这些任务。
For those reasons, I would like to reduce them because I think they impose harm where harm is unnecessary.
出于这些原因，我想减少它们，因为我认为它们在不必要的地方造成了伤害。
I don’t accept the premise of the question that reducing arrests has caused bedlam.
我不接受减少逮捕导致混乱这一问题的前提。
But if we look at San Francisco — I was watching the movie Dirty Harry a week ago, set in 1971 in San Francisco.
但如果我们看看旧金山——一周前我正在看电影《肮脏的哈利》，故事发生在 1971 年的旧金山。
The city was much cleaner in terms of problems on the street.
就街道问题而言，这座城市干净多了。
Although crime was higher, it seemed to work much better.
尽管犯罪率更高，但效果似乎要好得多。
There were no cases of people — maybe homeless people — just going into stores, taking things, knowing they won’t be arrested.
没有人——“也许是无家可归的人”——只是走进商店拿东西，知道自己不会被捕。
Citizens have had it up to here.
公民们已经受够了。
They claim it’s unlivable.
他们声称这里不适合居住。
Why don’t the police there simply need to be much tougher?
为什么那里的警察不需要更加严厉呢？
Why is that wrong?
为什么这是错误的？
I don’t know enough about what’s going on in San Francisco, but one of the big problems in San Francisco seems to be radical economic inequality that leads to the underlying problems, which you can’t arrest your way out of.
我对旧金山正在发生的事情了解不够，但旧金山的大问题之一似乎是根本性的经济不平等，它导致了根本性的问题，而这些问题是你无法阻止的。
You arrest somebody who walks into a store, and they spend the night in jail, and then they’re back out on the street and homeless again.
你逮捕了一个走进商店的人，他们在监狱里过夜，然后他们又回到街上，再次无家可归。
I don’t know what that arrest achieved in terms of public safety and public order.
我不知道这次逮捕对于公共安全和公共秩序来说取得了什么成果。
And I’m not sure that San Francisco would be willing to pay the costs of those arrests, or that it would get them what they want.
我不确定旧金山是否愿意支付这些逮捕的费用，或者这是否能让他们得到他们想要的东西。
Inequality is very high in Singapore, but you know there, if you commit a crime, you will be arrested and sent to jail.
新加坡的不平等非常严重，但你知道在那里，如果你犯罪，你就会被逮捕并送进监狱。
Why wouldn’t that work for San Francisco?
为什么这对旧金山不起作用？
First of all, I would detach the idea of an arrest from the idea of criminalization and penalizing.
首先，我会将逮捕的概念与刑事定罪和惩罚的概念分开。
I don’t know, again, much about Singapore, although I did spend a week there in 1989.
再说一遍，我对新加坡了解不多，尽管 1989 年我确实在那里待过一周。
I was sick for most of it.
大部分时间我都生病了。
Maybe it was ’90.
也许那是90年代。
What we can say is that, if somebody is engaged in behavior that we don’t want, there are lots of ways to address that.
我们可以说的是，如果有人做出了我们不想要的行为，有很多方法可以解决这个问题。
One of them is criminal sanction, but the decision to arrest somebody and the decision to sanction them criminally aren’t the same decision.
其中之一是刑事制裁，但逮捕某人的决定和对某人进行刑事制裁的决定不是同一个决定。
Okay?
好的？
We didn’t arrest Harvey Weinstein.
我们没有逮捕哈维·韦恩斯坦。
He was allowed to self-surrender with a pre-negotiated bail package.
他被允许通过预先协商的保释方案自首。
The only time he ever spent in handcuffs was in walking — before his conviction — walking from the police station to the courthouse after his self-surrender.
他唯一一次戴着手铐度过的时间是在步行时——“定罪前”——“自首后”从警察局步行到法院。
This was a violent felon.
这是一个暴力重罪犯。
We had evidence that he would be a harm to the public if he was let go.
我们有证据表明，如果他被释放，他将会对公众造成伤害。
And we didn’t arrest him.
我们没有逮捕他。
I’m not sure we should arrest every low-level offense for possession of marijuana.
我不确定我们是否应该逮捕所有持有大麻的低级犯罪行为。
What’s the importance —
有何重要性 —
I don’t think that gets us public safety.
我认为这并不能保证我们的公共安全。
You look at the numbers of arrests that we dropped in New York just by not arresting people for simple possession of marijuana, and you see that’s a lot of harm reduced and no additional public safety risk, or almost none.
你看看我们在纽约仅仅因为不逮捕仅仅持有大麻的人而减少的逮捕人数，你会发现这减少了很多伤害，并且没有额外的公共安全风险，或者几乎没有。
Sure, I think that should be legal.
当然，我认为这应该是合法的。
But people who steal things — I would arrest all of them whom I could catch without hesitation.
但偷东西的人……能抓到的我都会毫不犹豫地抓起来。
Why wouldn’t you charge them and ask them to show up in court?
你为什么不指控他们并要求他们出庭呢？
They won’t show.
他们不会表现出来。
Maybe they don’t have addresses.
也许他们没有地址。
Really?
真的吗？
Yeah.
是的。
Well, most people who get traffic tickets show up or pay their ticket.
好吧，大多数收到交通罚单的人都会出现或支付罚单。
And we know that’s totally malleable.
我们知道这是完全可塑的。
That is to say, all we have to do is remind you, and then the percentage of people who show up goes up 10 percent.
也就是说，我们只要提醒你一下，到场的人比例就会上升10%。
When we’re talking about low-level thefts, the penalties are not that high.
当我们谈论低级盗窃时，处罚并没有那么高。
These are not people who are worried that they’re going to spend the rest of their lives in prison.
这些人并不担心自己会在监狱里度过余生。
Most people are easy to find.
大多数人都很容易找到。
I’m not saying you might not — if you convince me that really people won’t show up, and really we can’t find them if they don’t, but I don’t think we have any reason to believe that’s true in most of these cases.
我并不是说你可能不会 —— 如果你让我相信人们真的不会出现，而且如果他们不出现我们就真的找不到他们，但我认为我们没有任何理由相信在大多数情况下都是如此。
What important truth are law students least likely to learn about policing?
关于警务，法学院学生最不可能了解哪些重要事实？
Oh, that it’s not all about constitutional law.
哦，这不全是关于宪法的。
When you go to law school, what you learn about policing is the Fourth Amendment and Miranda, and you think you’ve learned the law of the police.
当你上法学院时，你学到的关于治安的知识是第四修正案和米兰达，你认为你已经学到了警察法。
I teach a class now, after I teach them criminal procedure — my more advanced class is on all of the law that relates to policing, so they can see that we have to consider all the harms and benefits of policing, that law plays a critical role in setting standards, that policing is worth its cost and shapes expected values.
在教他们刑事诉讼程序之后，我现在教一堂课——“我的高级课程是关于与警务相关的所有法律，所以他们可以看到我们必须考虑警务的所有危害和好处，法律在制定标准方面发挥着关键作用，警务是值得其成本并塑造预期价值的。
Given the cost of not taking a plea bargain, can it be said today that there’s even still a right to a fair trial?
考虑到不接受辩诉交易的代价，今天是否可以说仍然有公平审判的权利？
It seems to me, no. Am I wrong?
在我看来，不。我错了吗？
Is there a right?
有权利吗？
No, no, there’s not much of a right to a fair trial.
不，不，没有多少获得公平审判的权利。
What should we do about that?
对此我们该怎么办？
That is not an area I’m nearly as expert in as policing.
这不是我在警务领域那么专业的领域。
But I think one of the problems is that we clog the system with a lot of offenses we never mean to prosecute, that we’re using the criminal justice system to address problems that, really, we should and could address in other ways.
但我认为问题之一是，我们用许多我们从未打算起诉的罪行堵塞了系统，我们正在利用刑事司法系统来解决实际上我们应该并且可以通过其他方式解决的问题。
That burdens the system.
这给系统带来了负担。
Tons and tons of misdemeanors are just dropped as soon as the person walks into court.
当这个人走进法庭时，无数的轻罪就被撤销了。
Counsel is really, really limited.
法律顾问的能力真的非常有限。
People have limited opportunities to meet with their counsel.
人们与律师会面的机会有限。
I think we could do a lot to improve the system by just reducing the scope of the system.
我认为我们可以通过缩小系统的范围来改进系统。
What’s a good movie about the police?
有什么关于警察的好电影？
I try not to watch that many movies about the police, to tell you the truth.
说实话，我尽量不看那么多关于警察的电影。
I’m a relatively low media-consumption person, so I’m not sure I’m the best person to say.
我是一个媒体消费相对较低的人，所以我不确定我是最合适的人选。
A good novel about the police.
一部关于警察的好小说。
Again, I don’t know that I’ve read many novels about the police.
再说一次，我不知道我读过多少关于警察的小说。
How much is popular culture a problem?
流行文化在多大程度上是一个问题？
It both tells police how they ought to behave, and it tells citizens what to expect from police.
它既告诉警察应该如何行事，又告诉公民对警察的期望。
Doesn’t it set a norm of a high expectation of violence on both sides?
这难道不是给双方设定了一种对暴力行为高度预期的常态吗？
Well, we used to have Officer Friendly, and now we have Training Day.
嗯，我们曾经有军官友好活动，现在我们有训练日。
Yeah.
是的。
I think it certainly portrays a message of policing that can distort both public perception and police perception of what the norms are, just like the media could do that in other contexts.
我认为它确实描绘了一种警务信息，可以扭曲公众和警察对规范的看法，就像媒体在其他情况下可以这样做一样。
Yeah.
是的。
Why is boxing interesting?
为什么拳击很有趣？
Because there is nothing that focuses your attention more than someone trying to hit you in the face.
因为没有什么比有人试图打你的脸更能吸引你的注意力了。
It is absolutely terrific at screening out all distraction.
它在排除所有干扰方面绝对非常出色。
You forget who you are when you box.
当你打拳击时，你会忘记自己是谁。
There is nothing that focuses your attention more than someone trying to hit you in the face.
没有什么比有人想打你的脸更能吸引你的注意力了。
It is absolutely terrific at screening out all distraction.
它在排除所有干扰方面绝对非常出色。
You forget who you are when you box.
当你打拳击时，你会忘记自己是谁。
What makes for a good boxer?
怎样才能成为一名优秀的拳击手？
Is it coaching, pain tolerance, brute strength, size?
是教练、疼痛耐受性、蛮力、身材吗？
I don’t know because I’ve never been a good boxer, so I’m not sure I’m qualified to say.
我不知道，因为我从来都不是一名优秀的拳击手，所以我不确定我是否有资格这么说。
Should we be worried about how many young men seem to love mixed martial arts today?
我们是否应该担心今天有多少年轻人喜欢综合格斗？
Is that a sign of decadence, or it’s just fine?
这是颓废的标志，还是没关系？
Well, again, I think it’s a mixed bag.
好吧，我再次认为这是一个好坏参半的问题。
I have to say that the experience of engaging in kickboxing is so terrific that I understand why people want to do it, even though it’s also injurious.
我不得不说，从事跆拳道的经历是如此美妙，以至于我理解为什么人们想要这样做，尽管它也有伤害性。
My kids would say it’s a blood sport.
我的孩子们会说这是一项血腥运动。
They won’t even watch football.
他们甚至不会看足球。
They certainly wouldn’t watch that.
他们当然不会看这个。
And they think that my affection for it is not my best feature.
而他们认为我对它的喜爱并不是我最好的特点。
Should the police have a right to the contents of your smartphone?
警察是否有权获取您智能手机的内容？
That’s not a simple question to ask.
这不是一个简单的问题。
In what context?
在什么背景下？
I think the police should not be able to open your smartphone when they see you on the street, but with a warrant, sure.
我认为警察在街上看到你时不应该打开你的智能手机，但有搜查令，这是肯定的。
Sometimes I think it’s important evidence to convict someone of a serious crime.
有时我认为这是判定某人犯有严重罪行的重要证据。
Sure.
当然。
Apple, as you know, tries to make the contents of smartphones impossible to decrypt if the user wants privacy.
如您所知，如果用户想要隐私，苹果会试图使智能手机的内容无法解密。
Should the federal government pass a law, in essence, disallowing that protection?
联邦政府是否应该通过一项实质上禁止这种保护的法律？
I don’t know.
我不知道。
What’s the economic future of law schools?
法学院的经济前景如何？
How many will survive?
有多少人能活下来？
Actually, I think it could be far fewer, and that wouldn’t be a bad thing.
事实上，我认为它可能会少得多，这并不是一件坏事。
I think we could reduce the number of law schools.
我认为我们可以减少法学院的数量。
Some law schools are effectively diploma mills that produce lawyers who don’t have a good shot of getting a JD-required or JD-valued job, which means they can’t pay off the loans that they take out to go to law school.
一些法学院实际上是文凭工厂，所培养的律师不太可能获得法学博士所需的工作或具有法学博士价值的工作，这意味着他们无法偿还上法学院的贷款。
So I wouldn’t mind seeing some law schools depart from the system.
所以我不介意看到一些法学院脱离这个系统。
UVA, as you know, is a top-rated law school.
如您所知，UVA 是一所顶级法学院。
But say you go to a law school ranked between 35 and 40, which can still have a lot of good elements, produce a lot of good research, have some great professors.
但是假设你去一所排名在 35 到 40 之间的法学院，那里仍然可以有很多好的元素，产生很多好的研究，有一些很棒的教授。
You’re asking students to pay a lot of money.
你要求学生付很多钱。
Probably they’re not getting aid.
他们可能没有得到援助。
Does it make sense, in economic terms, for that institution to still exist 10 years from now?
从经济角度来看，该机构在 10 年后仍然存在是否有意义？
Yes.
是的。
If you’re talking about ranked 30 to 40, sure.
如果你说的是排名 30 到 40，当然。
If you’re talking about ranked 150 to 200, then I think the answer is no.
如果你说的是排名150到200，那么我认为答案是否定的。
70 to 80?
70到80？
I don’t know.
我不知道。
I’d have to look at more data.
我必须查看更多数据。
If you think of the legal profession as a whole, you see a lot of lawyers at lower levels now being displaced by a mix of software and research assistants, and the research assistants are paid much less than lawyers used to be.
如果你将法律职业视为一个整体，你会发现许多较低级别的律师现在被软件和研究助理的混合所取代，而研究助理的工资比以前的律师要低得多。
By how much will the legal profession contract, given AI, machine learning, and just smart people who are willing to do some work without a law degree?
考虑到人工智能、机器学习以及愿意在没有法律学位的情况下从事某些工作的聪明人，法律行业的合同将会减少多少？
Again, since my experience as a lawyer was primarily in the government sector, it’s hard for me to assess the tradeoffs in automation and in deprofessionalization, as well as outsourcing law work.
同样，由于我作为律师的经验主要是在政府部门，因此我很难评估自动化和非专业化以及外包法律工作之间的权衡。
I can’t really tell.
我真的说不出来。
On the large drop in the New York City murder rate
关于纽约市谋杀率大幅下降
I think the New York City murder rate has declined by about a factor of 20 —
我认为纽约市的谋杀率下降了大约 20 ——
Yeah.
是的。
— since its peak.
——从巅峰时期开始。
What’s the main driver of that?
其主要驱动力是什么？
That’s an enormous change, right?
这是一个巨大的变化，对吧？
Most people didn’t predict it.
大多数人都没有预料到。
Why did that happen?
为什么会发生这种事？
Yeah, there are lots of debates about why that happened.
是的，关于为什么会发生这种情况有很多争论。
Again, that’s a good question for a criminologist, but I’m not the best person.
再说一遍，这对于犯罪学家来说是一个很好的问题，但我不是最好的人选。
But you’ve seen it happen, right?
但你已经看到它发生了，对吧？
Yes, I grew up in New York.
是的，我在纽约长大。
Sure.
当然。
You’ve been a prosecutor.
你曾经是一名检察官。
You’ve worked with police.
你曾与警察合作过。
You’ve studied the police.
你研究过警察。
You’re from Brooklyn.
你来自布鲁克林。
You must have some sense why this is happening.
您一定知道为什么会发生这种情况。
It’s funny.
这很有趣。
I’m always trying to convey how radically different New York is today from when I grew up in the ’70s and ’80s in New York, because my students read the Bernhard Goetz case, and they just have no sense of the context of it, you know, how people felt in New York, given the crime and that they were afraid to ride the subway or that Times Square was not, in fact, the Disney World that it is today.
我总是试图表达，今天的纽约与我在 70 年代和 80 年代长大时的纽约有多么不同，因为我的学生读过 Bernhard Goetz 案件，他们只是不了解它的背景，你知道，人们在纽约的感受如何，考虑到犯罪行为，他们害怕乘坐地铁，或者时代广场实际上并不是今天的迪士尼世界。
Sure.
当然。
I definitely do feel the difference.
我确实感受到了差异。
I don’t know that I have perfect intuitions about what has changed.
我不知道我对发生的变化有完美的直觉。
Soho was a dump, right?
Soho 曾经是一个垃圾场，对吧？
Even the Upper East Side wasn’t safe.
即使是上东区也不安全。
Now New York City is one of the safer cities in America.
现在纽约市是美国最安全的城市之一。
Even safer than many midsize cities.
甚至比许多中型城市更安全。
And we have no idea what happened?
我们不知道发生了什么？
No, there are lots of people who have lots of ideas about what happened.
不，有很多人对所发生的事情有很多想法。
I’m just not sophisticated about them enough to weigh in.
我只是对它们还不够成熟，无法权衡。
I resist talking about things I don’t know anything about.
我拒绝谈论我一无所知的事情。
Again, not one of my best qualities.
再说一遍，这不是我最好的品质之一。
But again, it can’t be you know nothing about it, right?
但话又说回来，你不可能对此一无所知，对吧？
You’re an expert on the police.
你是警察方面的专家。
What I can tell you is that the part of it that I focus on is, was it proactive policing?
我可以告诉你的是，我关注的部分是，它是主动警务吗？
Was it “stop, question, and frisk” and broken-windows policing that drove the murder rates down?
是“拦截、询问、搜身”和破窗治安降低了谋杀率吗？
And the answer to that is probably no. I think cities that didn’t engage in those strategies also had substantially lower crime rates and murder rates than they do today.
答案可能是否定的。我认为那些没有采取这些策略的城市的犯罪率和谋杀率也比今天低得多。
Does that mean that policing had no effect?
这是否意味着警察没有起到任何作用？
No, I won’t say policing had no effect.
不，我不会说警察没有任何作用。
I just don’t think it was adopting proactive, broken-windows policing.
我只是不认为这是采取主动、破窗的治安方式。
And when I look at those strategies, I’m all about the costs as well as the benefits.
当我审视这些策略时，我关心的是成本和收益。
So I think those strategies, especially “stop, question, and frisk” as was carried out in New York, was so vastly costly that we would be very cautious in thinking about its benefits on their own.
因此，我认为这些策略，尤其是在纽约实施的“拦截、询问和搜查”策略，成本高昂，以至于我们在考虑其好处时会非常谨慎。
The exclusionary rule — how much has it mattered?
排除规则 —— 它有多重要？
The exclusionary rule has mattered a lot to the culture of policing.
排除规则对警务文化非常重要。
I often tell my students a story about a guy I prosecuted.
我经常给我的学生讲一个关于我起诉的人的故事。
He committed tons and tons of crimes.
他犯下了无数的罪行。
When we were talking with him about some of them, he was explaining to me about how he would pull over people he suspected of being drug dealers and rob them for their cash and their drugs and then let them go or write them a ticket or whatever.
当我们和他谈论其中的一些事情时，他向我解释了他如何将那些他怀疑是毒贩的人拦下来，抢劫他们的现金和毒品，然后放他们走，或者给他们开一张罚单之类的。
When I asked him what he would make up for probable cause when he would either ticket them or stop them, what he told them for his reasons, he said, “What do you mean?” And I said, “Well, you’re pulling them over because you’re going to rob them.
当我问他，当他给他们开罚单或阻止他们时，他会用什么来弥补可能的原因，他告诉他们他的原因时，他说，“你是什么意思？”我说：“好吧，你把他们拦在路边是因为你要抢劫他们。
What would you make up for probable cause for the stop?”
您会用什么来弥补停车的可能原因？”
And he said, “Oh, no, no, no. I would follow them until they committed a traffic offense.
他说：“哦，不，不，不。我会跟着他们，直到他们违反交通规则。
And then I would pull them over.
然后我会把他们拉过来。
I wouldn’t make up probable cause.” And I said, “I’m sorry, you’re pulling them over to rob them, but you wouldn’t make up a probable cause?” And he said, “No, I’m still a cop.”
我不会编造可能的原因。”我说：“抱歉，你把他们拦下来是为了抢劫，但你不会编造一个可能的原因吗？”他说：“不，我仍然是一名警察。”
The reason that incident struck me so much is because the reason he has internalized the norms of probable cause is because that is subject to the exclusionary rule.
这起事件之所以让我如此震惊，是因为他之所以将可能原因的规范内化，是因为它受到排除规则的约束。
So the effect of the exclusionary rule, in large part, was to give police departments an incentive to teach officers the law and give officers an incentive to learn that law and follow it, at least in large part.
因此，排除规则的作用在很大程度上是激励警察部门向警官传授法律，并激励警官学习法律并遵守法律，至少在很大程度上是这样。
The constitutional law, before the exclusionary rule, was not something police officers knew anything about.
在排除规则之前，警察对宪法一无所知。
After the exclusionary rule, every police officer thinks that the Fourth Amendment is part of his police manual.
排除规则之后，每个警察都认为第四修正案是他的警察手册的一部分。
So I think it’s impossible to underestimate the cultural change in terms of internalizing norms of constitutional law into policing.
因此，我认为不可能低估将宪法规范内化到警务中的文化变革。
That doesn’t mean that it provides an effective incentive to never lie or never engage in illegal conduct as it’s currently structured.
这并不意味着它提供了一种有效的激励措施，让人们从不撒谎或从不参与目前的非法行为。
But I think it’s had an enormous effect on the culture of policing.
但我认为这对警务文化产生了巨大影响。
If we put aside all the bigger political issues and put aside the unusual events of the last few weeks, and we just compare the Obama and Trump administrations on policies toward police departments, what is the main difference?
如果我们抛开所有更大的政治问题，抛开过去几周的不寻常事件，我们只是比较奥巴马和特朗普政府对警察部门的政策，主要区别是什么？
Not the hot-button issues on the news every night, but the dry, boring stuff.
不是每晚新闻中的热点问题，而是枯燥乏味的内容。
The three things that the Trump administration did and then the things that it said.
特朗普政府所做的三件事以及它所说的事情。
When Sessions came in as Trump’s first attorney general, he effectively shut down the pattern-or-practice lawsuits that the Justice Department was carrying out.
当塞申斯就任特朗普第一任司法部长时，他有效地终止了司法部正在进行的模式或做法诉讼。
He allowed the ongoing ones to continue, though he tried to get out of the two that were not yet ink dry but had already been negotiated in Baltimore and Chicago.
他允许正在进行的谈判继续进行，尽管他试图摆脱尚未墨干但已在巴尔的摩和芝加哥谈判的两项谈判。
He managed to get out in Chicago, not in Baltimore because the judge wouldn’t let the Justice Department out of the suit.
他设法在芝加哥出狱，而不是在巴尔的摩，因为法官不让司法部退出诉讼。
So that was one thing, which is no new investigations or almost no new investigations.
所以这是一回事，没有新的调查或几乎没有新的调查。
They just shut down a program that the Obama administration had pursued very actively.
他们刚刚关闭了奥巴马政府非常积极推行的一项计划。
That was one thing.
那是一回事。
Another thing is that they reversed changes to the military equipment program, 1033, some of which is coming out now in association with the militarism around the protests.
另一件事是，他们推翻了对军事装备计划 1033 的修改，其中一些计划现在与围绕抗议活动的军国主义有关。
And there’s one more, which I am forgetting off the top of my head, but I’ll think of in a minute.
还有一个，我已经忘记了，但我一会儿就会想到。
Then the other thing that Trump did, President Trump and Jeff Sessions did, is they advocated for more aggressive policing.
然后，特朗普总统和杰夫塞申斯所做的另一件事是，他们主张采取更积极的治安措施。
They advocated “stop, question, and frisk” as a strategy in Chicago and repeatedly valued more aggressive forms of policing.
他们主张将“拦截、询问和搜身”作为芝加哥的一项策略，并一再重视采取更积极的治安形式。
You hear that, again, with Attorney General Barr in repeated advocacy for more aggressive forms of policing, which are harm inefficient, I think.
你又听到了，司法部长巴尔一再倡导采取更具侵略性的治安形式，我认为这种形式的危害效率很低。
Then President Trump, in his speech in Suffolk County, New York — he advocated allowing officers or encouraged officers to let suspects bang their head on the car door, which was effectively advocating constitutional violations by the police department.
随后，特朗普总统在纽约萨福克县的演讲中主张允许警察或鼓励警察让嫌疑人用头撞车门，这实际上是在宣扬警察部门违反宪法。
Together, all of those things have conveyed a very clear message to police departments that they value aggressive policing and not constitutional or harm-efficient policing.
所有这些都向警察部门传达了一个非常明确的信息，即他们重视积极的警务，而不是宪法或无害效率的警务。
On the Rachel Harmon production function
关于 Rachel Harmon 生产函数
Our very last segment is called the Rachel Harmon production function.
我们的最后一个部分称为 Rachel Harmon 生产函数。
It’s about you.
这是关于你的。
Having an engineering degree from MIT — how has it influenced how you think about the law?
拥有麻省理工学院的工程学位 ——它如何影响你对法律的看法？
Well, I went from engineering to philosophy to law, and you could call it a random walk, or you could say that I’m really interested in the structure of things.
嗯，我从工程学到哲学再到法律，你可以称之为随机游走，或者你可以说我对事物的结构真的很感兴趣。
I think that the analytic tools that I learned as an engineer definitely informed the way I think about legal issues.
我认为我作为工程师学到的分析工具肯定影响了我思考法律问题的方式。
Is it efficient to graduate with the highest grade possible from Yale Law School, as you did?
像您一样以最高成绩从耶鲁大学法学院毕业是否高效？
Or is that inefficient?
或者这样效率低下吗？
I don’t know the answer to that.
我不知道答案。
I guess it had some benefits.
我想它有一些好处。
I think it helped me get a clerkship at the Supreme Court.
我认为这帮助我在最高法院找到了一份书记员职位。
That was kind of fun.
那很有趣。
Probably helped me get with the academic jobs.
可能帮助我找到了学术工作。
So, for me, it’s been probably overall efficient, but I don’t know that anyone cares that much.
所以，对我来说，它可能总体上是有效的，但我不知道有人这么关心。
What did you learn clerking from Judge Guido Calabresi?
您从吉多·卡拉布雷西法官那里学到了什么书记员知识？
I mean, many things, but what stands out?
我的意思是，很多事情，但什么最突出？
Yes.
是的。
What stands out?
什么突出？
Guido has been a mentor to me, both as a lawyer, as a thinker, but also personally.
吉多一直是我的导师，无论是作为律师、思想家，还是个人。
He performed the wedding for me and my husband.
他为我和我丈夫主持了婚礼。
He’s been involved in my life since.
从那时起他就参与了我的生活。
I don’t know that I have one message, but maybe partly it’s actually about being a serious legal thinker and a human being.
我不知道我有什么信息，但也许部分实际上是关于成为一名严肃的法律思想家和一个人。
He has a remarkably rich and full life and cares enormously about people, and that’s been a wonderful thing to see and try to live up to.
他拥有非常丰富和充实的生活，并且非常关心他人，看到并努力实现这一点是一件很棒的事情。
And clerking for Stephen Breyer?
为斯蒂芬·布雷耶做书记员？
Oh, again, he’s a remarkable, wonderful man and a hugely human human being.
哦，再说一次，他是一个非凡的、了不起的人，也是一个非常人性化的人。
Stephen Breyer — one of the things that’s great about him is that he is exactly the same person on the bench, off the bench, in media, and with his children, so he’s a role model as a person.
斯蒂芬·布雷耶（Stephen Breyer）——他的伟大之处在于，无论是在替补席上、替补席上、在媒体上还是在与孩子们相处时，他都是同一个人，所以他是一个人的榜样。
One of the things he taught me about writing that actually affects my academic work most is that .
他教给我的关于写作的一件事实际上对我的学术工作影响最大的是。
.
。
.
。
From engineering, I learned to start with an outline and decide what I wanted to say, and then write all the sections to meet my outline.
从工程学中，我学会了从大纲开始，决定我想说的内容，然后编写所有部分以满足我的大纲。
Justice Breyer taught me to just write all my paragraphs and then work backwards to figure out what I had to say after the fact.
布雷耶法官教我写下所有段落，然后倒着想出事后我要说的话。
You’ve qualified four times for the USA Triathlon National Championships —
您已四次获得美国铁人三项全国锦标赛资格 —
No, more than that, I think.
不，我想还不止这些。
More?
更多的？
Wow.
哇。
Actually, I was planning to go this year.
其实我今年就打算去。
I’ve qualified, but I don’t usually go to the age group nationals because it’s a big haul and away from my family for days.
我已经取得了资格，但我通常不去参加全国年龄组比赛，因为这是一次大比赛，而且要离开我的家人好几天。
But this year, I was planning to go and compete in August, but obviously almost everything’s shut down.
但今年，我本来打算八月份去参加比赛，但显然几乎所有的活动都停摆了。
There are no races this year.
今年没有比赛。
Last question: I’m sure you have many great, very, very smart law students, but what is it you look for to see if one of them might be a promising future legal scholar, as you are?
最后一个问题：我确信你们有很多优秀、非常、非常聪明的法学学生，但是您在寻找什么来看看他们中的一个人是否像您一样成为未来有前途的法律学者？
What traits?
有什么特质？
The two things I look for most in a legal scholar — one is, I want to see someone who’s a dog with a bone.
我最看重法律学者的两点——一是我想看到一个有骨头的狗。
I want to see someone who just has a set of questions, even if it’s unrelated, some set of fundamental questions that bothers them enough that they just have to keep coming back to them again and again.
我想看到有人只是有一系列问题，即使这些问题无关紧要，一些基本问题足以困扰他们，以至于他们不得不一次又一次地回到这些问题。
Then, maybe if I can mix my metaphors, I want to make sure that bone is a rich vein to mine.
然后，也许如果我可以混合我的隐喻，我想确保骨头对我来说是丰富的静脉。
I want to know that that’s going to yield results over years and years.
我想知道这会在多年后产生成果。
When I see those two things, that kind of desperate need to chew and something that’s likely to pay off in learning something more about the world, then I say that person’s going to go someplace.
当我看到这两件事时，那种迫切需要咀嚼的东西以及可能会在更多地了解世界的过程中得到回报的东西，然后我说那个人要去某个地方。
Rachel Harmon, thank you very much.
雷切尔·哈蒙，非常感谢你。
Thank you.
谢谢。