《乌合之众·第三编·不同群体的分类与描述·刑事陪审团》第2节
"The selection of jurymen is to-day in reality in the hands of the municipal councillors, who put people down on the list or eliminate them from it in accordance with the political and electoral preoccupations inherent in their situation. . . . The majority of the jurors chosen are persons engaged in trade, but persons of less importance than formerly, and employes belonging to certain branches of the administration. . . . Both opinions and professions counting for nothing once the role of judge assumed, many of the jurymen having the ardour of neophytes, and men of the best intentions being similarly disposed in humble situations, the spirit of the jury has not changed: ITS VERDICTS HAVE REMAINED THE SAME." Of the passage just cited the conclusions, which are just, are to be borne in mind and not the explanations, which are weak. Too much astonishment should not be felt at this weakness, for, as a rule, counsel equally with magistrates seem to be ignorant of the psychology of crowds and, in consequence, of juries. I find a proof of this statement in a fact related by the author just quoted. He remarks that Lachaud, one of the most illustrious barristers practising in the Court of Assize, made systematic use of his right to object to a juror in the case of all individuals of intelligence on the list. Yet experience--and experience alone--has ended by acquainting us with the utter uselessness of these objections. This is proved by the fact that at the present day public prosecutors and barristers, at any rate those belonging to the Parisian bar, have entirely renounced their right to object to a juror; still, as M. des Glajeux remarks, the verdicts have not changed, "they are neither better nor worse."
注释摘要
勒庞在这段里要论证的核心命题是：对作为群体的陪审团而言，组成人员的智力水准与最终判决几乎无关。他引用了法官贝拉尔·德·格拉热的回忆来作为证据。这位重罪法庭前庭长观察到，从前法国政府精心挑选开明阶层——教授、公务员、文人——来担任陪审员，而到他那个时代，陪审员多半来自小商人、小资本家和雇员，尽管社会身份和职业构成发生了明显变化，判决精神却始终如一。勒庞接着又…