如果你想练习你的语言表达能力，就看这片子100遍吧

2006-01-06 16:09:46 　　来自: 天空的尾巴
　　两个美国海角陆战队的士兵对另一个士兵进行了“Code Red”的行为，最终该士兵死亡，故事后面的发展是关于这个人是否有罪的调查和辩护的过程。
片子的情节很简单，大量的时间用在了法庭的辩论上。
因此，这个片子中说服术的思维和语言就展现的比较的到位。
比如，一个谋杀事件的发生，必须有人受到审判来承担罪责，这是一个必然。在这个必然下，被告的律师的思路是，把这个受到谴责的人移位给这两个士兵的上级。并通过这个思路来进行法庭上的辩护和取证。
再比如：关于其中的一个身份为法医的证人，被告律师把他定位为一个医生，但不是一个犯罪学家，以弱化该证人的作用。

而在语言上，其用词的准确（以影响陪审团做出有利于己方判断的语言准确）则为精彩，比如数字的使用、重点的重复和强调、提问技巧的引导等等。（由于本人英语水平的低下，无法进行更为深入的分析。）

下面我们来看看双方律师的第一次交锋，就可见一般：

ROSS（原告律师，代表美国政府）

The facts of the case are this: At midnight on August 6th, the defendants went into the barracks room of their platoon-mate, PFC William Santiago. They woke him up, tied his arms and legs with rope, and forced a rag into his throat. A few minutes later, a chemical reaction in Santiago's body called lactic acidosis caused his lungs to begin bleeding. He drowned in his own blood and was pronounced dead at 32 minutes past midnight. These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed.

这一段是关于案件事实的陈述。关键点在于，最后一句，原告律师强调了这个事实不可置疑的。

That's right. The story I just told you is the exact same story you're going to hear from Corporal Dawson, and it's the exact same story you're going to hear from Private Downey. Furthermore, the Government will also demonstrate that the defendants soaked the rag with poison, and entered Santiago's room with motive and intent to kill.

这一段开始的一句，在一般情况下，可能是不会使用的，在这里使用，则为了向陪审团说明，被告对于事实的认同，包括上面的，也包括下面说的蓄意谋杀。这是一种误导的行为。在这段话中，原告律师提出了应该承担罪责的主体Dawson和Downey。

Now, Lt. Kaffee, is gonna try to pull off a little magic act, he's gonna try a little misdirection. He's going to astonish you with stories of rituals and dazzle you with official sounding terms like Code Red. He might even cut into a few officers for you. He'll have no evidence, mind you, none. But it's gonna be entertaining. When we get to the end, all the magic in the world will not have been able to divert your attention from the fact that Willy Santiago is dead, and Dawson and Downey killed him. These are the facts of the case.And they are undisputed.

这段话，虽然大部分的内容说的是Kaffee（被告律师）将要发生的辩护行为，弱化被告律师的影响力，但事实上，是为了再次强调Dawson和Downey谋杀的事实。

从这三段话来说，无非是为了达到其罪名成立的说辞。可能一般人用一段话就说完了，但在这里，原告律师用了三段话，第一段，描述了过程和结果；第二段描述了死因；第三段，轻视了被告律师的伎俩，并强调被告罪名成立。

我们来看看被告律师的说辞。

KAFFEE（被告律师）

There was no poison on the rag and there was no intent to kill and any attempt to prove otherwise is futile because it just ain't true.

在所有的陈述还没有开始的时候，被告律师开始选择的是否定原告律师的结论，否定的方面有两个，道具上面没有毒（留下了人死了，可能是意外的伏笔），同时也没有杀人的动机。哪为什么人死了呢？下面接着说。

When Dawson and Downey went into Santiago's room that night, it wasn't because of vengeance or hatred, it wasn't to kill or harm, and it wasn't because they were looking for kicks on a Friday night. It's because it was what they were ordered to do.

这一部分，重新说明了被告在行为上的无杀人动机，他们这么做的原因是因为他们执行命令。

Let me say that again: It's because it was what they were ordered to do. Now, out in the real world, that means nothing. And here at the Washington Navy Yard, it doesn't mean a whole lot more. But if you're a marine assigned to Rifle Security Company Windward, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and you're given an order, you follow it or you pack your bags.

这部分，解释的是，为什么他们必须执行这个命令。在一开始，律师一再强调，他们是执行了命令。

Make no mistake about it, Harold Dawson and Louden Downey are sitting before you in judgement today because they did their job.

最后，在结束时，律师还是强调了被告只是执行了任务——这就是被告律师让被告无罪的辩护基点。

语言的精彩，来自于语言的本身之外，也来自于言语的逻辑和结构！

你认为这篇讨论：有用 8 没用