擴展閱讀：誰會用車輪碾壓蝴蝶？

　　WHO BREAKS A BUTTERFLY ON A WHEEL?

　　誰會用車輪碾壓蝴蝶？

　　July 1, 1967

　　William Rees-Mogg

　　Mr. Jagger has been sentenced to imprisonment for three months. He is appealing against conviction and sentence, and has been granted bail until the hearing of the appeal later in the year. In the meantime, the sentence of imprisonment is bound to be widely discussed by the public. And the circumstances are sufficiently unusual to warrant such discussion in the public interest.

　　賈格先生被判處入獄三個月。他就這一判罰提出了上訴並獲得保釋，直到今年晚些時候上訴獲得受理為止。與此同時，這一入獄判決必然會得到公眾的廣泛討論。這次事件很不尋常，使得相關討論與公眾利益緊密聯繫在了一起。

　　Mr. Jagger was charged with being in possession of four tablets containing amphetamine sulphate and methyl amphetamine hydrochloride: these tablets had been bought, perfectly legally, in Italy, and brought back to this country. They are not a highly dangerous drug, or in proper dosage a dangerous drug at all. They are of the benzedrine type and the Italian manufacturers recommend them both as a stimulant and as a remedy for travel sickness.

　　賈格先生遭遇指控的罪名是持有四枚含有安非他命成分的藥片。他在義大利完全合法地購得了這些藥片並帶回國內。這種藥物危險性並不高，劑量合適時更是一點危險性也沒有。義大利製藥商建議將這些藥物作為興奮劑以及治療暈車暈船的藥品

　　In Britain, it is an offence to possess these drugs without a doctors prescription. Mr. Jaggers doctor says that he knew and had authorised their use, but he did not give a prescription for them as indeed they had already been purchased. His evidence was not challenged. This was therefore an offence of a technical character, which, before this case drew the point to public attention, any honest man might have been liable to commit. If after his visit to the POPE the ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY had bought proprietary airsckness pills on Rome airport, and imported the unused tablets into Britain on his return, he would have risked committing precisely the same offence. No one who has ever travelled and bought proprietary drugs abroad can be sure that he has not broken the law.

　　在英國，不經醫生開處方就持有這些藥品是非法行為。賈格先生的醫生說他對此事知情並批准了這些藥物的使用，但並未開處方，因為當時這些藥物已經被買回來了。他提供了可靠的證據。因此賈格先生的罪名僅僅是個程序問題，在本案引起公眾關注之前，任何正直誠實的人都有可能做出這種事。假如卡特彼勒大主教在面見教皇之後於羅馬機場購買了治療暈機的處方藥物，而且並未立刻服用，而是在返程時帶回了英國，那他也有可能犯下與本案完全一致的罪行。任何一位曾在出國旅遊期間購買處方葯的人都無法肯定自己並未觸犯法律。

　　Judge Block directed the jury that the approval of a doctor was not a defence in law to the charge of possessing drugs without a prescription and the jury convicted. Mr. Jagger was not charged with complicity in any other drug offence that occurred in the same house. They were separate cases, and no evidence was produced to suggest that he knew that Mr. FRASER had heroin tablets or that the vanishing Mr. SNEIDERMANN had cannabis resin. It is indeed no offence to be in the same building or the same company as people possessing or even using drugs, nor could it reasonably be made an offence. The drugs which Mr. JAGGER had in his possession must therefore be treated on their own, as a separate issue from the other drugs that other people may have had in their possession at the same time. It may be difficult for lay opinion to make this distinction clearly, but obviously justice cannot be done if one man is to be punished for a purely contingent association with someone elses offence.

　　布洛克法官引導陪審團認為醫生的批准不足以對未經處方持有管製藥品的行為進行辯護，他說服了陪審團。賈格先生並未因為那件房屋當中任何其他涉及到管製藥品的罪名受到同謀指控。這幾起案件相互獨立。沒有證據表明他知道弗雷澤先生持有海洛因或者消失的辛德曼先生持有大麻。與持有甚至使用毒品的人為伍或處於同一座建築內並非犯罪，也無法合乎道理地將其視為犯罪。賈格先生所持有的藥品必須單獨處理，與其他人同時可能持有的毒品無關。在這方面進行明確的劃分並不容易，但是很顯然因為某人僅僅與他人的犯罪存在巧合性關聯就對其加以懲處是不公正的。

　　We have, therefore, a conviction against Mr. Jagger purely on the ground that he possessed four Italian pep pills, quite legally imported without a prescription. Four is not a large number. This is not the quantity which a pusher of drugs would have on him, nor even the quantity one would expect in an addict. In any case, Mr. Jaggers career is obviously one that does involve great personal strain and exhaustion; his doctor says that he approved the occasional use of these drugs, and it seems likely that similar drugs would have been prescribed if there was a need for them. Millions of similar drugs are prescribed in Britain every year, and for a variety of conditions.

　　因此針對賈格先生的指控完全基於他未經處方批准便持有了合法取得的義大利藥品這一點上。四枚藥片數字不大，毒販不會隨身僅攜帶如此少量的藥品，甚至就連癮君子都不會僅僅攜帶這點藥品。而且，賈格先生的職業顯然十分勞累且壓力極大，他的醫生說自己偶爾會批准他使用此類藥品，而且如果看起來確有需求他也會為此類藥品開處方。

　　One has to ask, therefore, how it is that this technical offence, divorced as it must be from other peoples offences, was thought to deserve the penalty of imprisonment.

　　因此人們不禁要問，這樣一項與其他人罪名全然無關的程序性過錯怎麼就招致了入獄的刑罰。

　　In the courts at large it is most uncommon for imprisonment to be imposed on first offenders where the drugs are not major drugs of addiction and there is no question of drug traffic. The normal penalty is probation, and the purpose of probation is to encourage the offender to develop his career and to avoid the drug risks in the future. It is surprising therefore that Judge Block should have decided to sentence Mr. Jagger to imprisonment and particularly surprising as Mr. Jaggers is about as mild a drug case as can ever have been brought before the Courts.

　　正常的處罰應當是緩刑，目的在於敦促當事人在未來避免藥物風險。因此布洛克法官竟然判處賈格先生入獄實在令人驚訝，而更令人驚訝的是賈格先生所設計的僅僅是一起法院所能接觸的情節最為輕微的藥品犯罪

　　It would be wrong to speculate on the judges reasons which we do not know. It is however, possible to consider the public reaction. There are many people who take a primitive view of the matter, what one might call a pre-legal view of the matter. They consider that Mr. Jagger has "got what was coming to him". They resent the anarchic quality of the Rolling Stones performances, dislike their songs, dislike their influence on teenagers and broadly suspect them of decadence, a word used by Miss Monica Furlong in the Daily Mail .

　　妄自猜度法官的用意是錯誤的。但是公眾反應卻很可以考慮一下。很多人對這起案件的看法並不成熟，或者說尚未上升到法律高度。他們認為賈格先生是「自作自受」。他們抵觸滾石樂團的無政府主義表演風格，厭惡他們的歌曲，反感他們對青少年世家的影響，並且——按照《每日郵報》的莫妮卡.福隆小姐的說法——懷疑他們「腐化墮落」

　　As a sociological concern this may be reasonable enough, and at an emotional level it is very understandable, but it has nothing at all to do with the case. One has to ask a different question: has Mr. Jagger received the same treatment as he would have received if he had not been a famous figure, with all the criticism and resentment his celebrity has aroused? If a promising undergraduate had come back from a summer visit to Italy with four pep pills in his pocket would it have been thought right to ruin his career by sending him to prison for three months? Would it also have been thought necessary to display him in handcuffed to the public?

　　就社會角度而言這些擔憂都很合理，在情感層面上它們也很容易理解，但這一切都與本案無關。我們應當換一個問題：如果賈格先生不是名人，如果他未曾遭受名人身份激起的種種批評與反感，那麼他還會受到與現在一樣的判罰嗎？假如一位大有可為的大學畢業生去義大利度暑假回來也帶回了四枚藥片，那麼人們是否會認為用三個月的入獄刑罰來毀掉他的前途是正當之舉呢？將他帶上手銬示眾又是否必要呢？

　　There are cases in which a single figure becomes the focus for public concern about some aspect of public morality. The Stephen Ward case, with its dubious evidence and questionable verdict, was one of them, and that verdict killed STEPHEN WARD. There are elements of the same emotions in the reactions to this case. If we are going to make any case a symbol of the conflict between the sound traditional values of Britain and the new hedonism, then we must be sure that the sound traditional values include those of tolerance and equity. It should be the particular quality of British justice to ensure that Mr. JAGGER is treated exactly the same as anyone else, no better and no worse. There must remain a suspicion in this case that Mr. JAGGER received a more severe sentence than would have been thought proper for any purely anonymous young man.

　　在有些案件當中，單一的個人會成為公眾考慮公共道德問題時的焦點。例如證據不過硬且判決有問題的史蒂夫.瓦德一案，案件的判決殺死了瓦德。人們對於本案的情緒反應中也有與瓦德案件類似的因素。假如我們想將本案當做英國傳統道德與新興享樂主義之間發生衝突的標誌，那麼我們一定要保證寬容與公正也是傳統道德的一部分。英國司法體系應當著力確保賈格先生獲得與他人完全一樣的對待。而且我們也必須小心，因為賈格先生可能遭受的判罰與任何其他籍籍無名的男青年相比可能會更嚴重。