主题：【原创-评论】谈谈关于贺梅一案 “公正的审判” -- 梦里依稀

法律理论上的东西，既然法律专家门都有如此大的分歧，简直是针锋相对，我想作为外行，实在是说不出什么更多的意见来了。

有些问题，也想不清楚，提出来供大家探讨一下

从华人的族群利益上来看，涉及这类法律诉讼，目标应该是让当事者能得到法律上“公正的裁决”，确保其中没有对华人的歧视，没有对华人文化价值的误解，甚至让美国的法制系统承认华人社会的一些习俗，惯例等等。 这一点应该与当事人的错误无关，因为在一个判决中有这种现象，在下一个判决中也会有相似的现象，比如“中国的女婴有50%的死亡率”，“中国的计划生育政策”，在本案成为对贺不利的证据，我们可以认为贺自作自受，咎由自取，但是这个理由会不会也在下一次判决中成为对华人不利的证据？

而且，什么是公正的裁决？

我不想分析贺的人品，因为很多的东西来自法官的判决书，而法官明显对贺有强烈的反感，判决书中充满对贺的指责，这当然涉及贺的credibility, 但我想也同策略有关。

我想说的是，一个涉及法律纠纷的人，一般都会有过错或者过失，失误，那么到什么程度我们就该支持他，什么时候就不该？

法律没有弹性吗？我觉得是有的，犯了同样的错误，过失，导致什么样的法律上的惩罚，或者损失，这与当事者能够投入诉讼的资源，获得的支持有关。假设这个范围是1-10，从最小，到最大，如果是你的家人，我想多数人都会尽其所能，使得结果越接近 1 越好。

那么作为华人，我们应不应该做些什么呢？

此外，贺本人的行为是否“背叛”了华人的族群利益？

就大家最关心的两点讲一下

一点是贺方的证人出庭作证说，在华人传统中，欺骗政府不比欺骗家人那么严重。

正如萨文中提到的 “这也不是中国民族有劣根性，而是长期以来，在中国法律被作为是对百姓的束缚而不是保护，且以能够超越法律为荣耀，因此，养成了若干中国人对于法律的不良心理。”。

这种心理，不少国人都有，但这似乎并不妨碍这些人成为

合格的父母。

再有关于“贝说贺说中国的女婴有50%的死亡率”，贺如果说过这样的话，那么他确是为了某种目而不择手段地撒谎，但是法官把这一点写进判决书，作为证明贺家“不符合贺梅最大利益”的证据，是明显的歧视。

[url]http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/local_news/article/0,1426,MCA_437_2899689,

00.html[/url]

Judging from some opinions, legal experts both respectful and shocked

By Shirley Downing

Contact

May 20, 2004

Legal and child welfare experts are divided on the controversial May 12 ruling

that stripped a Chinese couple of parental rights to their 5-year-old

daughter.

Circuit Court Judge Robert Childers refused to return Anna Mae He to birth

parents Shaoqiang 'Jack' and wife Qin Luo 'Casey' He. The Hes have fought for

four years for the return of their first-born child from foster parents Jerry

and Louise Baker of Cordova.

Some lawyers praise Childers's professionalism and dedication to duty in the

20 years he's been on the bench. Other legal and child care experts use

"appalled," "stunned" or "shocked" in describing the ruling.

"This is an extraordinary case and an extraordinary opinion," said adoption

attorney Bob Tuke of Nashville, who served on a committee that helped rewrite

the state's adoption code in the mid-1990s.

Tuke said Childers used a "sound application of the law, including

constitutional principles" in reaching a decision.

Tuke also said the Hes' credibility was a factor - Childers simply did not

believe them.

Memphis Bar Association president John Heflin III said Childers "is a very

fine and experienced trial judge."

Childers has won numerous awards and is past president of the Tennessee Trial

Judges Association and past president of the Tennessee Judicial Conference, he

noted.

Heflin said the ruling "is a lengthy, detailed, factual analysis of the many,

many hours of testimony that he heard. Do I know whether he is right or not? I

don't know. I wasn't in the courtroom. Would I agree with him?

"Judges have the unfortunate situation that half their customers are unhappy

at the end of the case because they rule against somebody."

Other legal experts were not so generous. Steven Lubet, professor of law at

Northwestern in Chicago and author of several books on judicial and legal

ethics, said he was stunned by the ruling and its wording.

"I don't see how he can possibly find abandonment," Lubet said. "It is

inconceivable that he would find abandonment while the parents are actively

pursuing legal remedies to retrieve their child."

Lubet said Childers "draws every possible adverse inference against the Hes,

many of them with seemingly no support at all" while not using the same

reasoning with the Bakers.

Lubet said he plans to use the case in his classroom "to teach students how to

uncover unspoken assumptions in judicial opinions. It is just filled with

unspoken assumptions."

Richard Wexler, ????utive director of the National Coalition for Child

Protection Reform in Alexandria, Va., called the ruling "appalling."

"No matter how much the judge tries to divert our attention by spewing venom

at the Hes, at the bottom, this case is about wealth and poverty," Wexler

said.

Chris Zawisza, director of Child Advocacy Clinic at the University of Memphis

Law School, questioned the legal analysis of the 73-page ruling.

Beginning on Page 4, Childers describes the Bakers and their background, and

the Hes and their background. By Page 9 he is describing the Bakers as warm,

caring and filled with love for children. Over the next four pages, Childers

discusses the Hes and gives his opinion of their actions and motives.

Zawisza said the law "requires that the court not compare the natural parents

with adoptive parents in termination of parental rights proceedings because

the issue in a termination case is whether there is clear and convincing

evidence the parents either abused, neglected or abandoned the child, and that

is it.

"It is irrelevant what potential adoptive parents look like."

Anna Mae decision botched by judge

By Wendi C. Thomas, Commercial Appeal

May 20, 2004

http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/news_columnists/article/0,1426,MCA_646_2898787,00.html

If you let Circuit Court Judge Robert Childers tell it, Jack and Casey He are horrible parents.

Because of that, they don't deserve to get their 5-year-old daughter, Anna Mae He, back from her foster parents, Jerry and Louise Baker.

If you believe Childers (and I don't), the Hes are deceptive illegal immigrants motivated solely by their desire to stay in America.

If the Hes are bad as Childers claims, why hasn't the Department of Children's Services taken the Hes' other children away from them?

I'll tell you why. Because no American family is fighting to keep those children. And there's no proof the Hes are unfit parents.

Matters as complex as child custody cases are never as clear cut as Childers would have you believe.

His ruling to terminate the Hes' parental rights can be summed up in four words: Bakers good, Hes bad.

The Bakers, Childers says, are so wonderful that they missed church a few times so Anna Mae could see her biological parents.

On the other hand, the Hes had to lure Anna Mae to them with food during visits to the Bakers' home. Childers points this out as if to say, see, I told you they were bad.

The judge allows for no good will in the Hes' actions.

The Hes sent checks to the Bakers for Anna Mae's care, but the Bakers didn't cash them. The judge goes on to say the Hes didn't financially support their child.

The Hes brought Anna Mae gifts, but the fruit, clothing, toys and diapers were of "insubstantial economic value."

Hmm. I didn't know gifts had to have a high trade-in value to have worth.

Childers reluctantly acknowledges the risks of a "transcultural placement;" legalese for saying Anna is Chinese and they're white.

Then he pooh-poohs those risks, since they'll be erased by the Bakers' sensitivity.

The Bakers, I'm sure, are loving and caring parents.

But their best efforts to raise Anna Mae as a Chinese girl are destined to fall short.

No number of trips to Chinese festivals or Chinese churches, no number of visits from Chinese friends can replace waking up each morning to look into a face that looks like yours.

I can't shake the feeling that an anti-immigrant sentiment clouded Childers's judgment.

It's as if life in America is preferable to life anywhere else. But Childers can't come out and say that. Instead, he catalogs the Hes' every misstep (and granted, there are some) to make his case.

Mrs. He, Childers wrote, is "an impetuous person not subject to being intimidated. . . in achieving whatever she sets as her goal."

Mrs. He's goal? To reclaim her daughter, to which Childers assigns nefarious intent.

By the time I made it through the 73-page ruling I fully expected Childers to blame the Hes for global warm ing and rising gas prices.

Childers never proved the Hes are unfit parents. What he did prove is his version of justice is biased.

I hope it gets overturned.

不同国家的法律不同源于国家的利益不同

共同的人类利益准则也会有差异

公正只是观念上的东西

原圣经的故事, 一群人要砸死一个通奸的妇女. Jesus 说, 你们谁没有 sin 谁就可以动

手，最后没一个人动手，默默的都走开了。

而现代圣经故事北美华人版这样的，一群人要砸死一个通奸的妇女. Jesus 说, 你们谁没

有 sin

谁就可以动手。众华人学子人纷纷举手，我没通奸，我也没通奸，我们要砸她。Jesus无

奈的苦笑一下，默默的走开了

本来还想说一句, 这么好的文章藏在跟贴里可惜了. 谁知有些黑客这么厉害, 能把主副贴互换! 梦里依稀乾坤大挪移...

完全赞同。

这恰恰与当事人的错误有关，下面就提到了。

正是，因此才说当事人是害人害己。

这就是当事人错误的危害性，他固然是搬起石头砸了自己的脚，可这块石头还要挡住其他人的路；他固然是自作自受，可是其他华人会因他的表现而可能在其他诉讼中处于一定的不利地位。以此而言，他是不是对华人的族群利益造成了不利影响？

这确实是个问题，下面就会谈到。

没意见。

值得思考。什么时候应该支持――只要是华人就应该支持，还是既是华人又没有杀人放火就应该支持？应该支持到什么程度――因为当事人是华人，且另一方是非华人，所以所有华人就都自然地成为该华人的辩护人，即使这辩护有违自己的法律和道德观，即使该华人为了一己之利而不顾及可能对族群利益造成的伤害？

这里其实就回应了前面提出的“裁决的公正”的问题，既然法律是有弹性的，而且损失是1～10都是合理的，那么“裁决的公正”是不是也因此而有弹性呢？既然如此，那么是不是即使有歧视只要不超过弹性范围就不影响“裁判的公正”的呢？如此说来，对诉讼双方来说10：1、1：10以及3：8、5：5等等等等就都是合理的。贺家希望最后的结果是1：10，这希望是合理的，但实际的结果可能是10：1，这也是合理的。两个合理之间的差距不正反映了“法律的弹性”吗？因为没有达到自己的希望这裁决就不公正了吗？

作为华人我们需要做得很多，其中包括区分弱势与正义，理清民族情感与法律、道德的关系，也包括一日三省乎己，还包括很多很多……

“背叛”这个词太重了点吧？贺恐怕还没到这个份量。其他如前所述。

没意见。

其实，就贺梅案本身，我并不特别强烈地反对或赞同贺家，原因在链接出处中已谈，不再赘述。

我不是学法律的，只是根据我在美国多年来的所见所闻，讲一点想法。

贺梅应该归谁？这个案子的双方都有理有据，任何一方并不存在绝对的胜率。

贺梅是贺家亲生女儿，这是贺家的理。但是在美国，亲生父母并不绝对拥有儿女的抚养权。如果亲生父母是“unfit parents”，做父母不当，小孩子就会被带走，交给别人抚养。反正美国愿意养小孩，而又苦于没有机会的太多了。我们见多了这种案例，“unfit parents”可以是移民，或是美国人，白人黑人都有。

Baker家已经抚养贺梅多年，而且养的很好，他们有事实，有文件来支持他们争夺贺梅的长期抚养权。但是如果孩子的亲生父母愿意，而且能够承担作父母的责任，给予孩子良好的生活环境，亲生父母比领养父母有优先权来抚养自己的孩子。

贺家为什么会输了这官司呢？一是，因为他们穷，至少比Baker家穷；二是，他们撒谎，撒大谎，而且还厚颜无耻地承认他们就是撒了谎，而且撒谎无罪。

如果贺家不穷，有房子，有车，有钱请保姆，当然从头就不会有这个案子。因为穷，他们把孩子交给Baker家抚养多年，才会到头来又跟Baker家争夺孩子的抚养权，上了法庭。

因为贺家撒谎，法官Childers最后决定把贺梅判给Baker家。法官的判决书中充满对贺的指责，主要是他认为贺家不可信。

撒谎就会输官司吗？因为撒谎而输掉官司的，在美国可太多了。如果陪审和法官认为你撒谎，那么你的证据和辩护都可以化为乌有，满盘全输。

远的不说，就说一个最近的著名案例－－Martha Stewart。陪审团认为 Martha Stewart 有罪，就是因为他们认定她撒了谎。陪审团的 verdict 一出来，震动了美国，引起很多疑问。如果 Martha Stewart 有罪，那么大概３０％的华尔街上的人都有罪。事后，记者采访时，陪审团的成员的回答几乎一致：他们认为 Martha Stewart 撒谎，所以他们认定她有罪。

那当然！在法庭上撒谎的所在多有，也有安全过关，赢了官司的。第一，你要有克林顿那样的辩才，能把黑的说成是白的；第二，你有钱请得起大律师，像O.J. Simpson雇的那种大律师，能转移视线，让陪审团相信，Simpson是受了“种族主义”的陷害。

贺家什么都不是，用尽心思诡辩，撒谎，所以输了官司。输得并不冤枉。倒霉的是，我同意你说的：“这就是当事人错误的危害性，他固然是搬起石头砸了自己的脚，可这块石头还要挡住其他人的路；他固然是自作自受，可是其他华人会因他的表现而可能在其他诉讼中处于一定的不利地位。以此而言，他是不是对华人的族群利益造成了不利影响？ ”

贺梅案将列入西北大学法学院教材太好了，学法律的学生们可以永远为这个案子吵下去，永远分不清青红皂白。

偶小时候就喜欢琢磨这些，可惜不遇明师，到现在也只搞懂了书上看到的几个。我们行业有个德高望重的老教授，小时候就是走江湖变戏法的。有朝一日没兴趣了，就改行当了教授

贺梅案，当初一看法官的判决，登时觉得堵得慌，觉着法律真要是那样是不对的。可毕竟不是专家，又不敢肯定。看了这里的专家意见，特别是那句the issue in a termination case is whether there is clear and convincing evidence the parents either abused, neglected or abandoned the child，登时觉得石头放下了。既然如此，贺梅案就大有可辨之处。而且，这活儿确实得专家去干，非专业人士多掺和也没用。其他的问题还有，比如对华人的影响，不过相对较轻了。另外，多吸取贺绍强的教训是正经，不管是日常生活中，还是法庭上。

两个白人之间，两个黑人之间，两个华人之间，

公正也是相对的

法官是人，不是机器，

陪审团是人,不是机器

是人就有情感因素

信用的可靠需要以往的历史证明，

从今以后的行为只是假设

一个法官不公正，可以上述，

再议，还是不公正，再上诉，

直到最高法院，

如果一路下去都是结论都一样，

那这个判决就是为多数人认可的。

也就可谓“公正”

贺的问题不只是道德差，而且当庭说谎，提供假证据。这使法官无法相信他，当然会败诉。在双方各有说法的情况下，法官当然要判断谁提供的证据更有力。一个公正判决，不一定就是一个正确的判决。按贺的所做所为，法官可能认为贺百分之九十九的可能不是真心要要回孩子，因此他判贺败诉。这是一个合理的判决，但客观上结果不一定是正确的，因为有百分之一的可能贺是真的出於父爱要要回孩子。但这百分之一的可能，不能说明法官是不公正的。这是在他认知范围内能作出的最合理的判决。如果法官因为这百丰之一的可能，而置百丰之九十九的可能不顾，判贺胜诉，那才是不公正。

否则贺就有伪证罪了

我认为法官认定贺“遗弃，虐待贺梅”的证据不够充分，所以认为“中止贺家父母权”的判决不那么公正。

我觉得贺不是因为孩子以外的原因打这场官司。

虽然他最初对待贺梅的做法确实有亏职守。