《乌合之众·第三编·不同群体的分类与描述·刑事陪审团》第7节
[25] The magistracy is, in point of fact, the only administration whose acts are under no control. In spite of all its revolutions, democratic France does not possess that right of habeas corpus of which England is so proud. We have banished all the tyrants, but have set up a magistrate in each city who disposes at will of the honour and liberty of the citizens. An insignificant juge d'instruction (an examining magistrate who has no exact counterpart in England.--Trans.), fresh from the university, possesses the revolting power of sending to prison at will persons of the most considerable standing, on a simple supposition on his part of their guilt, and without being obliged to justify his act to any one. Under the pretext of pursuing his investigation he can keep these persons in prison for six months or even a year, and free them at last without owing them either an indemnity or excuses. The warrant in France is the exact equivalent of the lettre de cachet, with this difference, that the latter, with the use of which the monarchy was so justly reproached, could only be resorted to by persons occupying a very high position, while the warrant is an instrument in the hands of a whole class of citizens which is far from passing for being very enlightened or very independent.
注释摘要
这段文字是勒庞在讨论陪审团时插入的一个激烈脚注，他要证明的是一个看似矛盾的主张：虽然群体（比如陪审团）容易出错，但某些特权阶层（尤其是法官这类不受监督的体制内群体）可能更危险。他的论证核心是通过对比来抬高陪审团制度的相对价值。 勒庞首先攻击的是法国预审法官近乎无限的权力。他愤怒地指出，一个刚从大学毕业、毫无阅历的年轻预审法官，仅凭自己单方面怀疑，就能把任何…