正文
送交者: 若迷 于 北京时间 08/02/2009 (399 reads) [累积1100分 给若迷发悄悄话]
主题：芦笛：三说沈崇案
[芦笛之声] http://www.hjclub.info/bbs/viewtopic.php?p=2751893
标题: 三说沈崇案 (395 reads) 时间: 2009-7-27 周一, 下午8:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
作者：芦笛 在 芦笛自治区 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.info
三说沈崇案
芦笛
我援引谢泳先生对沈崇案的介绍，写了两篇文字后，网友姚清远先生找到了据说是当时的新闻报道，觉得各说不一。而且，他认为谢泳先生的文字不是很严谨，例如谢泳先生在文中介绍：
“据现在美国的周启博先生介绍，当时沈崇案由军事法庭审理，案卷存军方档案库。因涉外国公民，管外交的国务院也有相同的一套案卷。他从国家档案馆取得国务院这套案卷的复制件，全部为英文记录，共150张。因年久有些词和字母不太清楚，需从上下文猜出。”
但姚先生认为，谢泳先生没有给出具体文本，而且他的英文似乎不太好，连卓别林的名字都不认识，如果翻案翻错了，反而不妥。
窃以为，这位姚网友虽然“没有骨气”，思维却相当缜密。确实如此，后人考察这些重大历史事件，不能为情绪左右，更不能为政治需要服务，只能绝对忠于事实。
根据网友稀里糊涂先生提供的信息，某位现在美国执教的Zhang Hong女士写了本题为《America Perceived: The Making of Chinese Images of the United States, 1945-1953》（《1945年-1953年中国人眼中的美国》）的专著，其中有一章是专谈沈崇案的。老芦不揣浅陋，特地将该书有关审判的部分（第100页至第102页，published by Greenwood Press ，April 30, 2002）翻译如下。此书在Amazon等大书店有卖。
以下是译文，为网友阅读方便，我擅自将原文的某些长段落拆为短小段落，谨向作者致歉。另外，未经原作者同意就擅自翻译该书片段也是越权行为，但实际上能起到促销作用，还请原作者一并原谅。
--------------------------
1947年1月17日，美军海军陆战队第一师军事法庭在北平开始审理沈崇案的伍长皮尔逊。在审判即将开始前夕和在审判中，“北平抗暴联盟” （the Beiping Anti-Brutality Alliance）极度活跃，发布声明，谴责皮尔逊将由美国军事法庭而不是由一个中美联合法庭审判。
在审判中，沈崇上了法庭并作为证人作证。旁听者限于沈崇的父亲、她的法律顾问们、胡适、一群国民党官员以及新闻记者们。皮尔逊面对五项指控：（1）攻击，（2）在蓄谋强奸中的胁迫行为，（3）合奸，（4）不利于良好举止与军纪的行为，（5）伤风败俗的犯法行为。
皮尔逊只承认合奸，否认了其他指控。27名中美证人在由7人组成的美国军事法官团面前作了证。那位中国军队技工和警察作证说，他们听过沈崇哭叫，并看到被告压在沈的身上，但最初未能援救她，因为受到了那两个陆战队员的威胁。在所谓（alleged）强奸发生的那晚找到那群人的美国宪兵也作证说，皮尔逊“喝醉了”。在所谓强奸发生后不久检查了沈的中美医生作证说，他们的检查发现了她的私处有若干轻伤，表明她过去没有多少、或可能从未有过性经验，但那些轻伤和割伤也可能是合奸引起的。
皮尔逊的辩护律师约翰•马斯特斯中校不能证明沈崇是个妓女，但他长时间地使劲争辩说，沈同意和皮尔逊发生性交。马斯特斯声称，所谓强奸发生的地方交通通常很繁忙。如果沈大声呼救，就会有更多的人更早地前来援救她。马斯特斯还说，如果沈像被强奸时那样挣扎，其私处就会受到更多瘀伤和伤害，缺乏激烈的体力抵抗提示那是合奸。关于沈崇在警察局提出强奸指控一事，马斯特斯声称，沈崇这么做只是因为她在合奸中被捉到了，因此觉得说那是强奸更有利。
具有讽刺意味的是，尽管皮尔逊的律师很可能没有看过《大清律》中强奸罪的严格条文（其中的僵硬的证据要求给受害人施加了沉重的证明犯罪的负担），他的辩护却是按照类似的路线走的。根据《大清律》的强奸条，为了确立强奸犯罪，受害人必须提供证据，以证明她在那折磨中自始至终都在反抗，“此类证据须包括：甲、目击犯罪或听到受害人呼救的证人。乙、身有瘀伤或伤口。丙、撕破的衣服。”如果那女子在性攻击的过程中停止反抗，则该案须断为“非法合奸”。换言之，如某个学者所言，如果不是受害人的死亡，起码必须是严重受伤，才能让判案官员认定强奸指控的真实性。在沈崇案中，她实际上已经满足了中国传统的强奸罪的三条标准，但马斯特斯还要争辩说，为了强奸案得以确立，她应该受更多的瘀伤和叫喊得更响亮。
检察官保尔•斐茨格若尔德中校指出了两个陆战队员的强大的躯体（皮尔逊身高六英尺，手“又大又有力”）给一位只重125磅的18岁女大学生带来的震慑效应。他进一步争辩说，法律并不要求一个女孩去作超过“她的年龄，力气，周围的事实以及环境允许她做的事，来表示她的反对”。他最后说，很难解释一位出身于良好家庭、受过出色教育的年轻姑娘，为何会愿意在一个寒冷的夜晚，在一个空旷的操场上，与一个她刚刚偶然运到的醉汉度过三小时。唯一的解释就是她因为别无选择不得不呆了下来。
审判于1月22日结束，马斯特斯无力的辩护未能说服军事法官们。皮尔逊被判为对所有的指控有罪，被降为列兵，判处15年监禁。普利查德随后由另一军事法庭在元月30日审判，他被判为犯了攻击罪，以无良举止被退役，并判10个月监禁。
3月5日，驻华美军陆战队第一师师长塞缪尔•霍华德将军批准了军事法庭的判决，但该判决仍需华盛顿的海军部长批准。1947年6月中旬，海军军法官以证据不足为由，建议释放皮尔逊并恢复其伍长职务。
此前与沈崇案有关的反美示威已经冷却了许多，学生们专注于反饥饿、反内战运动。这则新闻再次激起舆论界的怒火，导致学生的请愿和抗议声明。在中国人眼中，皮尔逊犯了强奸罪是不容置疑的，华盛顿开脱他的滔天大罪进一步体现了美国人无视正义。一家有影响的报纸《大公报》在指出美军中的“黑羊”败坏了美军在中国的名声的同时，也指出“如果一个强奸了中国女孩的美国军人可以被视为无罪，那么在美国人眼中，中国人到底成了什么样的人？”
关于皮尔逊案件处理的消息也引起了国民党当局方面的震惊，导致南京和北平之间又一轮疯狂的电报来往。与此同时，中国外交部也向南京美国大使馆递交了抗议信，要求维持对皮尔逊的原判。
胡适曾在此前做了许多努力，争取一个能使得学生平静下来的法律解决，此时却痛苦地发现军事法庭的判决被否决了。从当地一家报纸上得知此事后，他立即打电报给南京的司徒雷登，表示对那消息的严重关切与震骇。他警告司徒雷登，这将可能给学生们带来政治上的震荡，因为这消息将“有力地煽起反美骚动”。他强烈呼吁司徒雷登严肃考虑此事。此后不久，胡适从美国报纸上读到关于皮尔逊案更详细的报道，意识到军法官的建议尚待海军部长的最后批准。他立即又发了一份标明了“紧急”的电报给司徒雷登，强烈敦促他让美国政府认识到全中国正在“非常焦急地观察”皮尔逊案件， 把它当成是对“美国司法的一个考验”。他直截了当地拒绝了美国新闻报道关于皮尔逊是“在全国学生抗议中”被判决的声称，提醒司徒雷登，抗议发生在1946年12月30日，而军法审判是在1947年1月17日开庭，皮尔逊则在1月22日被判决。
在获知皮尔逊案的消息后，沈崇的父亲沈绍（音译，好在不是“常凯申”或“门修斯”之类名人）给胡适发了一封措词激烈的信，谴责美国人无视正义。他指出，已经得到确凿证明的皮尔逊的犯罪行为被平反，必将使得中国人对美国坚持法治的倾慕心理烟消云散。他请求胡适敦促中国政府代表他的女儿加以干预，以期正义得到伸张。
美国海军部随即宣布案件仍在调查中，其目的是为了平息再度激起的兴奋。但在八月中旬，海军部长苏利文宣布因为缺乏证据而撤销原判决，国防部长杰姆斯•佛理斯托尔签署了最后的命令。这则重要新闻传出时，中国的大学和学院都在放暑假。当新学期在九月开始时，抗暴领袖们发现难以再度煽起上一学期的狂热来。
--------------------------
请注意：
此处介绍的情况与谢泳转述的周启博先生的介绍有如下出入：
1、谢文说：
“据周先生介绍，沈崇事件发生以后，1947年 1月6日海军陆战队第一师（加强师）司令下令于中国北平第五海军陆战队司令部举行审判，前后经过多次审理。”
而Zhang Hong女士的专著说的却是1947年1月17日开庭，1月22日结束，她引的胡适给司徒雷登的电文也重复了这一声称。
2、谢文说：
“1947年6月11日军事法庭审判皮尔逊案的审判记录显示：控罪3和控罪5已经撤诉；控罪2和控罪4被宣判无罪。控罪1，他被判有罪。他被判决降为列兵军阶，监禁十五年， 受不名誉退伍和其他有关处分。下令审判的有关当局已经批准了审判过程，调查结果和判决。”
张（或章）著则说，军事法庭审判早已于1月22日结束，法庭全部控罪5项全都成立（这很奇怪，控罪3是“合奸”，也是皮尔逊唯一承认的指控，岂可与强奸控罪同时成立，并行不悖？），判决内容两者倒是一致的。
3、谢文说：
“军事法庭最后认定，根据事实和上述法律， 对控罪 1 及其说明的调查结果和下令审判的机关的相关决定 , 予以撤消。根据对控罪2和控罪4的调查结果，对法庭判决和下令审判的机关的相关决定, 予以撤消。总军法官认为，下令审判的机关根据以上陈述和建议采取的司法程序和行动是合法的。
这个陈述和建议后来得到了海军部长苏利文的批准。因此，对控罪1 及其说明的调查结果予以撤销。根据对控罪 2 和 4 的调查结果，审判的判决和下令审判的机关的相关决定也予以撤销。”
而张著则说，“1947年6月中旬，海军军法官（the Judge Advocate-General of the Navy）以证据不足为由，建议释放皮尔逊并恢复其伍长职务。”
两者的基本精神一致，但海军军法官6月中旬作的是review，也就是复查案件初审，并不是军事法庭审判。谢泳先生或周启博先生未能讲清楚，给读者造成了错觉，似乎那军事法庭自1月份开庭后一直延续到该年6月中旬，最后作出了无罪判决。我最初没细看那文字，获得的就是这印象。
据我推想，周启博先生大概是看了海军部保留的有关司法档案，其中既有法庭初审和原判的卷宗，也有后来军法官在审查卷宗后作出的建议判决，但遗憾的是周先生或谢先生未能指明结论式话语的出处，例如下面这段话：
“虽然证据显示 1946年12月24日晚事件开始时她不是自愿跟两个海军陆战队员走的，但是除了她自己的证词以外，没有其他证据证明她哭过或者反抗过。与此相反，其他控方证人作证说，在她和被告呆在一起的那么长的时间里，证人既没听到她哭叫，也没看到她挣扎反抗。如果说这些要干预被告和姑娘的证人相信姑娘正在被强奸，而 他们无力援救她，是令人难以相信的。”
这到底是谁的话语？是初审时辩护律师的话语，还是海军部军法官作出的结论？不说清这些重要细节，读者就必然会被误导。
最严重的问题还是，这话本身就是个笑话——除非假定控方证人始终和皮尔逊以及沈崇在一起，否则如何能断言：“在她和被告呆在一起的那么长的时间里，证人既没听到她哭叫，也没看到她挣扎反抗”？
有鉴于此，我不揣冒昧，谨此建议谢先生再对此案作类似Zhang Hong 女士那样的深入调查，最好能组织几个学生把周启博先生查到的档案材料翻译出来。若是不能做到这点，那就将英文抄下来也行，总比这么笼而统之地说上一气要强得多。
我的个人感觉则是：
1）虽然共党在事发后大肆炒作该案并将其政治化，而该案的客观效应也的确极大地有利于我党，但迄无证据表明那是我党特工使用的美人计。相反，从已知情况来看，那更像是个偶发事件，因此无可能在事前策划。要捕捉这种偶然机会制造成大案，沈崇必须天天晚上在美军出没场所徘徊，而她的家庭不可能允许她这么做，即使是寄宿在亲戚家也无可能。
2）强奸案看来确实发生了，如几位网友指出的那样，沈崇不抵抗，并不证明她是心甘情愿的——南京大屠杀中那些乖乖跪下让鬼子砍头的战俘和百姓也没有抵抗，不能因此就说那些人是心甘情愿寻死。
3）网上所谓“强奸案未曾发生，沈崇是处女”之类的风传乃是无根之谈。无论是皮尔逊还是沈崇都承认两人发生了性关系，分歧只在于是强奸还是合奸。
4）美军陆战队第一师军事法庭的宣判是正确的。后来海军部翻案则毫无道理。不能排除种族歧视心理干扰了海军部军法官的判断。直到上世纪60年代，美国南部黑人被杀，凶手还在证据确凿的情况下被无罪开释。40年代傲慢的白人军官违反正义处理发生在遥远的中国的罪案不足为奇，皮尔逊若立过战功就更会如此。
【附注：网友wangology的朋友对此条作了如下批判，本人心悦诚服：
从现在的标准来看，强奸肯定是发生了。我们现在所使用的强奸概念及其判定标准是受1970年代开始的女 权主义法学的影响，也就是说在此之前，美国法律传统中对强奸的认定就是那么僵硬的标准，跟文中所提及的大清律的标准也差不多（当然现在多数中国法官对于强 奸的认定标准也是和大清律差不多）。
将强奸——“违背受害者意志发生的性行为”中的“违背意志”操作化为“强迫和胁迫”是80年代中后期才被美国和加拿大普遍接受的。从文中的情况 看，沈崇案大致属于胁迫这一类（胁迫，指为达到非法的目的，采用某种方法造成他人精神上的巨大的压力或直接对他人肉体施加暴力强制的行为）。主要理由已经 由文中提及的一审控方检查官阐释得非常清楚了。倒是很佩服那个控方检察官，观念真的是很超前。40年代能够看到关于强奸案这样的辩论和案例，估计在美国本 土也不多见。
如果不还原到美国当时所使用的法律制度，以种族歧视来解释，恐怕又落回狭隘的民族主义的纠巢（芦注，疑为“窠臼”之误）。】
5）国府并没有为讨好友邦而放弃维护公民的正当权益，值得检讨的是，此案发生后，国府应该坚持由中国法庭审理，邀请美方人士出庭旁听。在事实上延续“治外法权”，使得中美两国最后两败俱伤。
6）美国政府极其傲慢短视，竟然无视胡适的呼吁，后来遇上朝鲜战争也是活该。
7）中国精英阶层一如既往地愚蠢，为我党当枪使，最后赶走了西式司法正义，换来了“我是和尚打伞——无法无天”，用少数民族的民歌来说便是：“不是爹妈坑害你，你自搬石头自打脚。”
8）力挽狂澜而徒劳无功的先知先觉胡适先生乃是现代史上最可怜可悲可敬的精卫鸟。我深信当国人普遍脱愚之日，便是先生为后代子孙感激之时。
9）我在此前的两篇相关文章中没有占据足够的知识作出的推测不能成立，谨此向可能为我误导的网友道歉，以后当引为教训，切忌匆忙为文。
-----------------------------
附：英文原文。说明，这是从网上展示的该书的照相文本上逐字抄下来的，有若干打字错误，如将“if”打成“in”，“then”打成“than”，“reveal”打成“revel”等等。我在翻译中发现了，因此未影响译文，但我懒得纠正原文了，就这样吧，估计也没人看。
On January 17, 1947, an American court martial of the First Marine Division began to try Corporal Pierson in the Shen Chong case in Beiping. Immediately before and during the days of the trial, the Beiping Anti-Brutality Alliance was most active in issuing statements denouncing the fact that Pierson was going to be tried in a US court martial instead of a Sino-US court. At the trial, Shen Chong went to the court and testified as a witness. The audience was limited to Shen Chong’s father, her legal advisers, Hu Shi, a number of GMD officials , and newspaper reporters. Pierson faced five charges: (1) assault, (2) coercion in attempting rape, (3) fornication, (4) behavior prejudicial to good conduct and military discipline, and (5) offense against decency. Pierson pleaded guilt only to fornication, and denied the rest of the charges. Twenty-seven Chinese and American witness testified before a panel of seven American military judges. The Chinese army mechanics and policemen testified that they had heard Shen Chong cry and seen the accused on top of Shen, but had failed to come to her rescue initially because of the threats from the marines. The MP who found the group on the night of the alleged rape also testified that Pierson was “intoxicated.” The American and the Chinese doctors who examined Shen shortly after the alleged rape testified that the examination reveled minor injuries to her private parts and demonstrated that she had not had much or probably had had no previous sexual experience, although the minor bruises and cuts could also result from consensual sexual intercourse.
Pierson’s counsel, lieutenant Colonel John Masters, could not establish Shen Chong as a prostitute, but he did argue long and hard that Shen had consented to sexual intercourse with Pierson. Masters claimed that the place where the alleged rape had taken place was usually heavily traveled. Had Shen cried louder for help, more people would have come to her rescue sooner. Masters also argued that had Shen struggled had as would be expected in a rape, she would have sustained more bruises and injuries to her private parts, while the lack of evidence of strong physical resistance suggested consensual sexual intercourse. Regarding the fact that Shen Chong had pressed a rape charge at the police station, Masters claimed that Shen did so only because she was caught in the act of fornication, and thus found it expedient to call it rape.
Ironically, although the counsel for Pierson was most unlikely to have read the stringent Rape Code of the Qing dynasty, where stiff evidential stipulations placed heavy burden of proof on the victim, his arguments ran along similar lines. Based on the Qing Rape Code, to establish a rape crime, the victim had to supply proof that she had fought against her attacker throughout the whole ordeal. “Such evidence must include: (1) witnesses, either eyewitnesses or people who had heard the victim’s cry for help; (2) bruises and lacerations on her body; and (3) torn clothing.” If the woman had stopped struggling in the course of sexual attack, then the case must be considered “illicit intercourse by mutual consent.” In other words, as one scholar suggests, only severe physical injury, if not her death, could convince judicial officials of the genuineness of he rape charge. In the case of Shen Chong, she actually met the tree traditional Chinese criteria for rape, although Masters argued that she should have had more burses and cried louder for her rape cases to be established.
The prosecution, conducted by Lieutenant Colonel Paul Fitzgerald, argued the debilitating effect of the overpowering physical presence of the two marines (Pierson was a six-foot young man with “large and powerful” hands) on a 125-pound, 18-year-old college girl. Fitzgerald further contended that the law did not require a girl to do more than “her age, strength, the surrounding facts, and all attending circumstances make it reasonable for her to do, in order to manifest her opposition.” He concluded that it was most difficult to explain why a young, educated girl from an excellent family would willingly spend three hours on a bitterly cold night in an open field with a drunken man she had just accidentally run into. The only explanation was that she stayed because she had no other choice.
The trial ended on January 22, the flimsy arguments made by Masters failed to convince the military judges. Pierson was found guilty of all charges, demoted to the rank of private, and sentenced to 15 years’- imprisonment. Pritchard was then tried in a separate court martial that opened on January 30. He was convicted of assault and sentenced to a bad conduct discharge and 10 months in prison.
On March 5, General Samuel Howard, Commander of the First Division of the US Marines stationed in China, ratified the court-martial sentence, which, however, was still subject to final approval by the Secretary of the Navy in Washington. In mid-June of 1947, the Judge Advocate-General of the Navy recommended releasing Pierson from confinement and reinstating him as corporal on the ground of insufficient evidence.
By then the anti-American demonstrations related to Shen Chong case had cooled off appreciably and the students had become preoccupied with the anti-hunger, anti-civil war movement. This piece of news again aroused some fury in the press, and led to student petitions and protest manifestos. For the Chinese, that Pierson was guilty of rape was beyond any doubt and Washington’s exoneration of his heinous crime further suggested the American disregard of justice. Dagong Bao, an influential newspaper, while suggesting that “black sheep” among American servicemen had adversely affected the reputation of American forces in China, nevertheless asserted that “in an American service man who has raped a Chinese girl can be considered not guilty, then what kind of people will the Chinese be in the eyes of Americans?”
The news about the Pierson case also caused consternation on the part of GMD authorities, and led to another wound of frenzied exchanges of telegrams between Beiping and Nanjing. Meanwhile, the Chinese foreign ministry also dispatched a letter of protest to the American embassy in Nanjing demanding the original sentence of Pierson be maintained.
Hu Shi, who had exerted much effort in securing a legal settlement that could pacify the students, found to his dismay that the court-martial ruling was rejected. Upon learning the news from a local Chinese newspaper, Hu Shi immediately telegraphed Stuart in Nanjing. He stated his grave concern and shock at the news, and warned Stuart of possible political repercussions among students because this news would “greatly inflame anti-American agitation.” In the end, he strongly appealed to Stuart’s serious consideration of the issue. Shortly after, Hu Shi read a more detailed account on the Pierson case from an American newspaper and realized that the recommendation made by the Jude Advocate-General had to await final approval by the Secretary of the Navy. He immediately sent another telegram marked “urgent” to Stuart strongly urging him to make the American government realize that the Pierson case was “most anxiously watched” by the whole Chinese nation as a “test of American justice.” He flatly refuted the claim made by the American report that Pierson was convicted “in the midst of nationwide student demonstrations.” He asked Stuart to recall that the student demonstrations took place on December 30, 1946, while the court martial was opened on January 17, 1947, and Pierson was convicted on January 22.
Upon learning about the news related to Pierson case, Shen Chong’s father, Shen Shao, sent a strongly worded letter to Hu Shi condemning the American disregard of justice. He asserted that to reverse of Pierson’s well-established criminal act would result in the complete dissipation of the Chinese admiration for American adherence to law. He implored Hu Shi to urge the Chinese government to interfere on behalf of his daughter to see justice done.
The Department of the Navy than announced that the case was still under investigation, which worked to quench the renewed excitement. In mid-August, however, Secretary of the Navy John Sullivan declared a reversal of the verdict based on lack of evidence, and Secretary of Defense James Forrestal signed the final order. This piece of important news came out when the Chinese colleges and universities were in summer recess. When the fall semester began in September, the Kangbao leaders found it difficult to regenerate the fervor of the previous semester. （Zhang Hong: America Perceived: The Making of Chinese Images of the United States, 1945-1953, pp100-102, pub Greenwood Press ,April 30, 2002）
作者：芦笛 在 芦笛自治区 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.info
主题：芦笛：三说沈崇案
[芦笛之声] http://www.hjclub.info/bbs/viewtopic.php?p=2751893
标题: 三说沈崇案 (395 reads) 时间: 2009-7-27 周一, 下午8:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
作者：芦笛 在 芦笛自治区 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.info
三说沈崇案
芦笛
我援引谢泳先生对沈崇案的介绍，写了两篇文字后，网友姚清远先生找到了据说是当时的新闻报道，觉得各说不一。而且，他认为谢泳先生的文字不是很严谨，例如谢泳先生在文中介绍：
“据现在美国的周启博先生介绍，当时沈崇案由军事法庭审理，案卷存军方档案库。因涉外国公民，管外交的国务院也有相同的一套案卷。他从国家档案馆取得国务院这套案卷的复制件，全部为英文记录，共150张。因年久有些词和字母不太清楚，需从上下文猜出。”
但姚先生认为，谢泳先生没有给出具体文本，而且他的英文似乎不太好，连卓别林的名字都不认识，如果翻案翻错了，反而不妥。
窃以为，这位姚网友虽然“没有骨气”，思维却相当缜密。确实如此，后人考察这些重大历史事件，不能为情绪左右，更不能为政治需要服务，只能绝对忠于事实。
根据网友稀里糊涂先生提供的信息，某位现在美国执教的Zhang Hong女士写了本题为《America Perceived: The Making of Chinese Images of the United States, 1945-1953》（《1945年-1953年中国人眼中的美国》）的专著，其中有一章是专谈沈崇案的。老芦不揣浅陋，特地将该书有关审判的部分（第100页至第102页，published by Greenwood Press ，April 30, 2002）翻译如下。此书在Amazon等大书店有卖。
以下是译文，为网友阅读方便，我擅自将原文的某些长段落拆为短小段落，谨向作者致歉。另外，未经原作者同意就擅自翻译该书片段也是越权行为，但实际上能起到促销作用，还请原作者一并原谅。
--------------------------
1947年1月17日，美军海军陆战队第一师军事法庭在北平开始审理沈崇案的伍长皮尔逊。在审判即将开始前夕和在审判中，“北平抗暴联盟” （the Beiping Anti-Brutality Alliance）极度活跃，发布声明，谴责皮尔逊将由美国军事法庭而不是由一个中美联合法庭审判。
在审判中，沈崇上了法庭并作为证人作证。旁听者限于沈崇的父亲、她的法律顾问们、胡适、一群国民党官员以及新闻记者们。皮尔逊面对五项指控：（1）攻击，（2）在蓄谋强奸中的胁迫行为，（3）合奸，（4）不利于良好举止与军纪的行为，（5）伤风败俗的犯法行为。
皮尔逊只承认合奸，否认了其他指控。27名中美证人在由7人组成的美国军事法官团面前作了证。那位中国军队技工和警察作证说，他们听过沈崇哭叫，并看到被告压在沈的身上，但最初未能援救她，因为受到了那两个陆战队员的威胁。在所谓（alleged）强奸发生的那晚找到那群人的美国宪兵也作证说，皮尔逊“喝醉了”。在所谓强奸发生后不久检查了沈的中美医生作证说，他们的检查发现了她的私处有若干轻伤，表明她过去没有多少、或可能从未有过性经验，但那些轻伤和割伤也可能是合奸引起的。
皮尔逊的辩护律师约翰•马斯特斯中校不能证明沈崇是个妓女，但他长时间地使劲争辩说，沈同意和皮尔逊发生性交。马斯特斯声称，所谓强奸发生的地方交通通常很繁忙。如果沈大声呼救，就会有更多的人更早地前来援救她。马斯特斯还说，如果沈像被强奸时那样挣扎，其私处就会受到更多瘀伤和伤害，缺乏激烈的体力抵抗提示那是合奸。关于沈崇在警察局提出强奸指控一事，马斯特斯声称，沈崇这么做只是因为她在合奸中被捉到了，因此觉得说那是强奸更有利。
具有讽刺意味的是，尽管皮尔逊的律师很可能没有看过《大清律》中强奸罪的严格条文（其中的僵硬的证据要求给受害人施加了沉重的证明犯罪的负担），他的辩护却是按照类似的路线走的。根据《大清律》的强奸条，为了确立强奸犯罪，受害人必须提供证据，以证明她在那折磨中自始至终都在反抗，“此类证据须包括：甲、目击犯罪或听到受害人呼救的证人。乙、身有瘀伤或伤口。丙、撕破的衣服。”如果那女子在性攻击的过程中停止反抗，则该案须断为“非法合奸”。换言之，如某个学者所言，如果不是受害人的死亡，起码必须是严重受伤，才能让判案官员认定强奸指控的真实性。在沈崇案中，她实际上已经满足了中国传统的强奸罪的三条标准，但马斯特斯还要争辩说，为了强奸案得以确立，她应该受更多的瘀伤和叫喊得更响亮。
检察官保尔•斐茨格若尔德中校指出了两个陆战队员的强大的躯体（皮尔逊身高六英尺，手“又大又有力”）给一位只重125磅的18岁女大学生带来的震慑效应。他进一步争辩说，法律并不要求一个女孩去作超过“她的年龄，力气，周围的事实以及环境允许她做的事，来表示她的反对”。他最后说，很难解释一位出身于良好家庭、受过出色教育的年轻姑娘，为何会愿意在一个寒冷的夜晚，在一个空旷的操场上，与一个她刚刚偶然运到的醉汉度过三小时。唯一的解释就是她因为别无选择不得不呆了下来。
审判于1月22日结束，马斯特斯无力的辩护未能说服军事法官们。皮尔逊被判为对所有的指控有罪，被降为列兵，判处15年监禁。普利查德随后由另一军事法庭在元月30日审判，他被判为犯了攻击罪，以无良举止被退役，并判10个月监禁。
3月5日，驻华美军陆战队第一师师长塞缪尔•霍华德将军批准了军事法庭的判决，但该判决仍需华盛顿的海军部长批准。1947年6月中旬，海军军法官以证据不足为由，建议释放皮尔逊并恢复其伍长职务。
此前与沈崇案有关的反美示威已经冷却了许多，学生们专注于反饥饿、反内战运动。这则新闻再次激起舆论界的怒火，导致学生的请愿和抗议声明。在中国人眼中，皮尔逊犯了强奸罪是不容置疑的，华盛顿开脱他的滔天大罪进一步体现了美国人无视正义。一家有影响的报纸《大公报》在指出美军中的“黑羊”败坏了美军在中国的名声的同时，也指出“如果一个强奸了中国女孩的美国军人可以被视为无罪，那么在美国人眼中，中国人到底成了什么样的人？”
关于皮尔逊案件处理的消息也引起了国民党当局方面的震惊，导致南京和北平之间又一轮疯狂的电报来往。与此同时，中国外交部也向南京美国大使馆递交了抗议信，要求维持对皮尔逊的原判。
胡适曾在此前做了许多努力，争取一个能使得学生平静下来的法律解决，此时却痛苦地发现军事法庭的判决被否决了。从当地一家报纸上得知此事后，他立即打电报给南京的司徒雷登，表示对那消息的严重关切与震骇。他警告司徒雷登，这将可能给学生们带来政治上的震荡，因为这消息将“有力地煽起反美骚动”。他强烈呼吁司徒雷登严肃考虑此事。此后不久，胡适从美国报纸上读到关于皮尔逊案更详细的报道，意识到军法官的建议尚待海军部长的最后批准。他立即又发了一份标明了“紧急”的电报给司徒雷登，强烈敦促他让美国政府认识到全中国正在“非常焦急地观察”皮尔逊案件， 把它当成是对“美国司法的一个考验”。他直截了当地拒绝了美国新闻报道关于皮尔逊是“在全国学生抗议中”被判决的声称，提醒司徒雷登，抗议发生在1946年12月30日，而军法审判是在1947年1月17日开庭，皮尔逊则在1月22日被判决。
在获知皮尔逊案的消息后，沈崇的父亲沈绍（音译，好在不是“常凯申”或“门修斯”之类名人）给胡适发了一封措词激烈的信，谴责美国人无视正义。他指出，已经得到确凿证明的皮尔逊的犯罪行为被平反，必将使得中国人对美国坚持法治的倾慕心理烟消云散。他请求胡适敦促中国政府代表他的女儿加以干预，以期正义得到伸张。
美国海军部随即宣布案件仍在调查中，其目的是为了平息再度激起的兴奋。但在八月中旬，海军部长苏利文宣布因为缺乏证据而撤销原判决，国防部长杰姆斯•佛理斯托尔签署了最后的命令。这则重要新闻传出时，中国的大学和学院都在放暑假。当新学期在九月开始时，抗暴领袖们发现难以再度煽起上一学期的狂热来。
--------------------------
请注意：
此处介绍的情况与谢泳转述的周启博先生的介绍有如下出入：
1、谢文说：
“据周先生介绍，沈崇事件发生以后，1947年 1月6日海军陆战队第一师（加强师）司令下令于中国北平第五海军陆战队司令部举行审判，前后经过多次审理。”
而Zhang Hong女士的专著说的却是1947年1月17日开庭，1月22日结束，她引的胡适给司徒雷登的电文也重复了这一声称。
2、谢文说：
“1947年6月11日军事法庭审判皮尔逊案的审判记录显示：控罪3和控罪5已经撤诉；控罪2和控罪4被宣判无罪。控罪1，他被判有罪。他被判决降为列兵军阶，监禁十五年， 受不名誉退伍和其他有关处分。下令审判的有关当局已经批准了审判过程，调查结果和判决。”
张（或章）著则说，军事法庭审判早已于1月22日结束，法庭全部控罪5项全都成立（这很奇怪，控罪3是“合奸”，也是皮尔逊唯一承认的指控，岂可与强奸控罪同时成立，并行不悖？），判决内容两者倒是一致的。
3、谢文说：
“军事法庭最后认定，根据事实和上述法律， 对控罪 1 及其说明的调查结果和下令审判的机关的相关决定 , 予以撤消。根据对控罪2和控罪4的调查结果，对法庭判决和下令审判的机关的相关决定, 予以撤消。总军法官认为，下令审判的机关根据以上陈述和建议采取的司法程序和行动是合法的。
这个陈述和建议后来得到了海军部长苏利文的批准。因此，对控罪1 及其说明的调查结果予以撤销。根据对控罪 2 和 4 的调查结果，审判的判决和下令审判的机关的相关决定也予以撤销。”
而张著则说，“1947年6月中旬，海军军法官（the Judge Advocate-General of the Navy）以证据不足为由，建议释放皮尔逊并恢复其伍长职务。”
两者的基本精神一致，但海军军法官6月中旬作的是review，也就是复查案件初审，并不是军事法庭审判。谢泳先生或周启博先生未能讲清楚，给读者造成了错觉，似乎那军事法庭自1月份开庭后一直延续到该年6月中旬，最后作出了无罪判决。我最初没细看那文字，获得的就是这印象。
据我推想，周启博先生大概是看了海军部保留的有关司法档案，其中既有法庭初审和原判的卷宗，也有后来军法官在审查卷宗后作出的建议判决，但遗憾的是周先生或谢先生未能指明结论式话语的出处，例如下面这段话：
“虽然证据显示 1946年12月24日晚事件开始时她不是自愿跟两个海军陆战队员走的，但是除了她自己的证词以外，没有其他证据证明她哭过或者反抗过。与此相反，其他控方证人作证说，在她和被告呆在一起的那么长的时间里，证人既没听到她哭叫，也没看到她挣扎反抗。如果说这些要干预被告和姑娘的证人相信姑娘正在被强奸，而 他们无力援救她，是令人难以相信的。”
这到底是谁的话语？是初审时辩护律师的话语，还是海军部军法官作出的结论？不说清这些重要细节，读者就必然会被误导。
最严重的问题还是，这话本身就是个笑话——除非假定控方证人始终和皮尔逊以及沈崇在一起，否则如何能断言：“在她和被告呆在一起的那么长的时间里，证人既没听到她哭叫，也没看到她挣扎反抗”？
有鉴于此，我不揣冒昧，谨此建议谢先生再对此案作类似Zhang Hong 女士那样的深入调查，最好能组织几个学生把周启博先生查到的档案材料翻译出来。若是不能做到这点，那就将英文抄下来也行，总比这么笼而统之地说上一气要强得多。
我的个人感觉则是：
1）虽然共党在事发后大肆炒作该案并将其政治化，而该案的客观效应也的确极大地有利于我党，但迄无证据表明那是我党特工使用的美人计。相反，从已知情况来看，那更像是个偶发事件，因此无可能在事前策划。要捕捉这种偶然机会制造成大案，沈崇必须天天晚上在美军出没场所徘徊，而她的家庭不可能允许她这么做，即使是寄宿在亲戚家也无可能。
2）强奸案看来确实发生了，如几位网友指出的那样，沈崇不抵抗，并不证明她是心甘情愿的——南京大屠杀中那些乖乖跪下让鬼子砍头的战俘和百姓也没有抵抗，不能因此就说那些人是心甘情愿寻死。
3）网上所谓“强奸案未曾发生，沈崇是处女”之类的风传乃是无根之谈。无论是皮尔逊还是沈崇都承认两人发生了性关系，分歧只在于是强奸还是合奸。
4）美军陆战队第一师军事法庭的宣判是正确的。后来海军部翻案则毫无道理。不能排除种族歧视心理干扰了海军部军法官的判断。直到上世纪60年代，美国南部黑人被杀，凶手还在证据确凿的情况下被无罪开释。40年代傲慢的白人军官违反正义处理发生在遥远的中国的罪案不足为奇，皮尔逊若立过战功就更会如此。
【附注：网友wangology的朋友对此条作了如下批判，本人心悦诚服：
从现在的标准来看，强奸肯定是发生了。我们现在所使用的强奸概念及其判定标准是受1970年代开始的女 权主义法学的影响，也就是说在此之前，美国法律传统中对强奸的认定就是那么僵硬的标准，跟文中所提及的大清律的标准也差不多（当然现在多数中国法官对于强 奸的认定标准也是和大清律差不多）。
将强奸——“违背受害者意志发生的性行为”中的“违背意志”操作化为“强迫和胁迫”是80年代中后期才被美国和加拿大普遍接受的。从文中的情况 看，沈崇案大致属于胁迫这一类（胁迫，指为达到非法的目的，采用某种方法造成他人精神上的巨大的压力或直接对他人肉体施加暴力强制的行为）。主要理由已经 由文中提及的一审控方检查官阐释得非常清楚了。倒是很佩服那个控方检察官，观念真的是很超前。40年代能够看到关于强奸案这样的辩论和案例，估计在美国本 土也不多见。
如果不还原到美国当时所使用的法律制度，以种族歧视来解释，恐怕又落回狭隘的民族主义的纠巢（芦注，疑为“窠臼”之误）。】
5）国府并没有为讨好友邦而放弃维护公民的正当权益，值得检讨的是，此案发生后，国府应该坚持由中国法庭审理，邀请美方人士出庭旁听。在事实上延续“治外法权”，使得中美两国最后两败俱伤。
6）美国政府极其傲慢短视，竟然无视胡适的呼吁，后来遇上朝鲜战争也是活该。
7）中国精英阶层一如既往地愚蠢，为我党当枪使，最后赶走了西式司法正义，换来了“我是和尚打伞——无法无天”，用少数民族的民歌来说便是：“不是爹妈坑害你，你自搬石头自打脚。”
8）力挽狂澜而徒劳无功的先知先觉胡适先生乃是现代史上最可怜可悲可敬的精卫鸟。我深信当国人普遍脱愚之日，便是先生为后代子孙感激之时。
9）我在此前的两篇相关文章中没有占据足够的知识作出的推测不能成立，谨此向可能为我误导的网友道歉，以后当引为教训，切忌匆忙为文。
-----------------------------
附：英文原文。说明，这是从网上展示的该书的照相文本上逐字抄下来的，有若干打字错误，如将“if”打成“in”，“then”打成“than”，“reveal”打成“revel”等等。我在翻译中发现了，因此未影响译文，但我懒得纠正原文了，就这样吧，估计也没人看。
On January 17, 1947, an American court martial of the First Marine Division began to try Corporal Pierson in the Shen Chong case in Beiping. Immediately before and during the days of the trial, the Beiping Anti-Brutality Alliance was most active in issuing statements denouncing the fact that Pierson was going to be tried in a US court martial instead of a Sino-US court. At the trial, Shen Chong went to the court and testified as a witness. The audience was limited to Shen Chong’s father, her legal advisers, Hu Shi, a number of GMD officials , and newspaper reporters. Pierson faced five charges: (1) assault, (2) coercion in attempting rape, (3) fornication, (4) behavior prejudicial to good conduct and military discipline, and (5) offense against decency. Pierson pleaded guilt only to fornication, and denied the rest of the charges. Twenty-seven Chinese and American witness testified before a panel of seven American military judges. The Chinese army mechanics and policemen testified that they had heard Shen Chong cry and seen the accused on top of Shen, but had failed to come to her rescue initially because of the threats from the marines. The MP who found the group on the night of the alleged rape also testified that Pierson was “intoxicated.” The American and the Chinese doctors who examined Shen shortly after the alleged rape testified that the examination reveled minor injuries to her private parts and demonstrated that she had not had much or probably had had no previous sexual experience, although the minor bruises and cuts could also result from consensual sexual intercourse.
Pierson’s counsel, lieutenant Colonel John Masters, could not establish Shen Chong as a prostitute, but he did argue long and hard that Shen had consented to sexual intercourse with Pierson. Masters claimed that the place where the alleged rape had taken place was usually heavily traveled. Had Shen cried louder for help, more people would have come to her rescue sooner. Masters also argued that had Shen struggled had as would be expected in a rape, she would have sustained more bruises and injuries to her private parts, while the lack of evidence of strong physical resistance suggested consensual sexual intercourse. Regarding the fact that Shen Chong had pressed a rape charge at the police station, Masters claimed that Shen did so only because she was caught in the act of fornication, and thus found it expedient to call it rape.
Ironically, although the counsel for Pierson was most unlikely to have read the stringent Rape Code of the Qing dynasty, where stiff evidential stipulations placed heavy burden of proof on the victim, his arguments ran along similar lines. Based on the Qing Rape Code, to establish a rape crime, the victim had to supply proof that she had fought against her attacker throughout the whole ordeal. “Such evidence must include: (1) witnesses, either eyewitnesses or people who had heard the victim’s cry for help; (2) bruises and lacerations on her body; and (3) torn clothing.” If the woman had stopped struggling in the course of sexual attack, then the case must be considered “illicit intercourse by mutual consent.” In other words, as one scholar suggests, only severe physical injury, if not her death, could convince judicial officials of the genuineness of he rape charge. In the case of Shen Chong, she actually met the tree traditional Chinese criteria for rape, although Masters argued that she should have had more burses and cried louder for her rape cases to be established.
The prosecution, conducted by Lieutenant Colonel Paul Fitzgerald, argued the debilitating effect of the overpowering physical presence of the two marines (Pierson was a six-foot young man with “large and powerful” hands) on a 125-pound, 18-year-old college girl. Fitzgerald further contended that the law did not require a girl to do more than “her age, strength, the surrounding facts, and all attending circumstances make it reasonable for her to do, in order to manifest her opposition.” He concluded that it was most difficult to explain why a young, educated girl from an excellent family would willingly spend three hours on a bitterly cold night in an open field with a drunken man she had just accidentally run into. The only explanation was that she stayed because she had no other choice.
The trial ended on January 22, the flimsy arguments made by Masters failed to convince the military judges. Pierson was found guilty of all charges, demoted to the rank of private, and sentenced to 15 years’- imprisonment. Pritchard was then tried in a separate court martial that opened on January 30. He was convicted of assault and sentenced to a bad conduct discharge and 10 months in prison.
On March 5, General Samuel Howard, Commander of the First Division of the US Marines stationed in China, ratified the court-martial sentence, which, however, was still subject to final approval by the Secretary of the Navy in Washington. In mid-June of 1947, the Judge Advocate-General of the Navy recommended releasing Pierson from confinement and reinstating him as corporal on the ground of insufficient evidence.
By then the anti-American demonstrations related to Shen Chong case had cooled off appreciably and the students had become preoccupied with the anti-hunger, anti-civil war movement. This piece of news again aroused some fury in the press, and led to student petitions and protest manifestos. For the Chinese, that Pierson was guilty of rape was beyond any doubt and Washington’s exoneration of his heinous crime further suggested the American disregard of justice. Dagong Bao, an influential newspaper, while suggesting that “black sheep” among American servicemen had adversely affected the reputation of American forces in China, nevertheless asserted that “in an American service man who has raped a Chinese girl can be considered not guilty, then what kind of people will the Chinese be in the eyes of Americans?”
The news about the Pierson case also caused consternation on the part of GMD authorities, and led to another wound of frenzied exchanges of telegrams between Beiping and Nanjing. Meanwhile, the Chinese foreign ministry also dispatched a letter of protest to the American embassy in Nanjing demanding the original sentence of Pierson be maintained.
Hu Shi, who had exerted much effort in securing a legal settlement that could pacify the students, found to his dismay that the court-martial ruling was rejected. Upon learning the news from a local Chinese newspaper, Hu Shi immediately telegraphed Stuart in Nanjing. He stated his grave concern and shock at the news, and warned Stuart of possible political repercussions among students because this news would “greatly inflame anti-American agitation.” In the end, he strongly appealed to Stuart’s serious consideration of the issue. Shortly after, Hu Shi read a more detailed account on the Pierson case from an American newspaper and realized that the recommendation made by the Jude Advocate-General had to await final approval by the Secretary of the Navy. He immediately sent another telegram marked “urgent” to Stuart strongly urging him to make the American government realize that the Pierson case was “most anxiously watched” by the whole Chinese nation as a “test of American justice.” He flatly refuted the claim made by the American report that Pierson was convicted “in the midst of nationwide student demonstrations.” He asked Stuart to recall that the student demonstrations took place on December 30, 1946, while the court martial was opened on January 17, 1947, and Pierson was convicted on January 22.
Upon learning about the news related to Pierson case, Shen Chong’s father, Shen Shao, sent a strongly worded letter to Hu Shi condemning the American disregard of justice. He asserted that to reverse of Pierson’s well-established criminal act would result in the complete dissipation of the Chinese admiration for American adherence to law. He implored Hu Shi to urge the Chinese government to interfere on behalf of his daughter to see justice done.
The Department of the Navy than announced that the case was still under investigation, which worked to quench the renewed excitement. In mid-August, however, Secretary of the Navy John Sullivan declared a reversal of the verdict based on lack of evidence, and Secretary of Defense James Forrestal signed the final order. This piece of important news came out when the Chinese colleges and universities were in summer recess. When the fall semester began in September, the Kangbao leaders found it difficult to regenerate the fervor of the previous semester. （Zhang Hong: America Perceived: The Making of Chinese Images of the United States, 1945-1953, pp100-102, pub Greenwood Press ,April 30, 2002）
作者：芦笛 在 芦笛自治区 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.info
评论
目前还没有任何评论
登录后才可评论.
