包裹式主張 Package of Claims

不可分之眾主張即為一主張之眾等價表述，而對於凡夫呈現不可分之假象。	Indivisible claims are actually equivalent expressions of a single claim, and it shows ordinary people to an illusion of indivisibility.
可分之眾主張，應逐一檢視其邏輯上、物理上與法律上之可行性。	In the face of divisible claims, we shall check the claims one by one for their logical, physical and legal possibilities.
未逐一檢視，唯因包裹有一好惡主張而好惡全包裹者，確屬不智。	It is indeed unwise to favor or disfavor a whole package in virtue only of a single favorable or unfavorable claim, without checking the claims one by one.

法律上競合乃歸納不全所致之錯覺 Legal Concurrence is a Misconception Due to Incomplete Induction

法律上競合，乃一事實受多數法條所規範，而論以何者生其效力之謂。	Legal concurrence means the theory to determine which provision prevails among plural provisions prescribed for one event.
惟此乃古人對於事實與法條之關係，歸納不全所致之錯覺。	However, it is a misconception due to incomplete induction with respect to the relation between events and provisions established in ancient times.
以電腦科學，使一事實受唯一法條所規範，而生其效力，實為輕而易舉。	In fact, it is very easy to prescribe, based on computer science, a unique provision taking effect for one event.

空想法律 A Fantastic Law

法律並沒有變出現實事物的魔法。	A law does not have a magic of producing a real thing.
利用法律變出權利，卻沒有現實事物可支援該權利，該法律即為空想，應予廢止。	In case of a law prescribed to create a right without a real thing to support it, such a law is just a fantasy and shall be abolished.
然而，製造出空想法律的人，因其無知及無能，通常會進一步再利用法律變出義務，要求別人去實現該空想。這是最令人受不了的。	Typically, because of his/her ignorance and incompetence, the person who prescribed the fantastic law will further prescribe another law to create an obligation that asks other people to realize such a fantasy. This is the most annoying thing.

口供 Confession

人的記憶是極不可靠的。	Human memory is extremely unreliable.
一個人連昨天吃過什麼、喝過什麼都記不清楚了，更遙遠的記憶就更不用說了。	A person can remember clearly neither what he ate nor what he drank yesterday. His distant memories can be even unclear.
一群人的相同記憶還是不可靠的，因為人們經常產生人云亦云的集體幻覺。	The same memory of a group of people is still unreliable, because people are often infected with a collective illusion to follow the herd.
因此，以記憶為基礎的口供也是不可靠的，用來作為定罪的根據，實在太危險了。	Therefore, a confession based on memory is also unreliable. It is too dangerous to obtain a conviction according to such an unreliable thing.
我認為，口供的用處就是引導物證的發現，只有物證的特徵與口供的敘述一致，罪證才臻於明確。	In my opinion, a confession shall be only used to guide the discovery of a material evidence. A crime is proved only when the features of a material evidence meet with the content of the confession.
只要缺少物證，被告就應該無罪釋放。	Without a material evidence, the defendant shall be acquitted.

立法之思考順序 Thinking Legislation in Sequence

事情不定成法律，無法強制人去遵守。	People may not comply with a rule if it is not prescribed in a law.
但是，即使定成法律，若無人去監督，還是無法強制人去遵守。	However, people may still not comply with the rule prescribed in the law if there is no supervisor.
但是，即使定成法律，且有人去監督，若根本是事實上做不到的事情，還是無法強制人去遵守。	However, people may still not comply with the rule prescribed in the law with a supervisor if the rule is factually unenforceable.
所以，事情要不要定成法律，是倒著思考上述命題而定的。	Therefore, whether a rule shall be prescribed in a law is determined by reverse thinking the aforementioned theses.
先定成法律，才開始想如何執行的人，即為無謀。	It is thoughtless to prescribe a rule in a law before knowing how to enforce it.

公民覺醒之闡明 A Specification of Civic Consciousness

公民覺醒，須事實上且法律上覺醒，始堪稱之。	Civic consciousness must be built on factual and legal bases.
主張事實上不能實現之法律，或認同法律上不能允許之事實者，皆不能謂已公民覺醒。	A person who claims a law that is factually impracticable, or approves a fact that is legally impermissible, is not deemed having civic consciousness.

信賴保護之界限 Limitation of Legitimate Expectation

有鑑於全民利益守恆，信賴保護於財產給付行為不適用之，乃當然之見解。	In view of conservation of entire interest, it is a trivial opinion that legitimate expectation is not applicable to national behavior with respect to payment of property.
何人承受上開不利益，以〈資源分配之準則〉為依歸。	The issue of who should bear the damage is accorded to The Principle of Resource Distribution.

資源分配之準則 The Principle of Resource Distribution

若將水全給大象，則小鼠會渴死；若將水均分給大象和小鼠，則大象會渴死；若水就這麼多，則兩者遲早都會渴死。	If the water is all distributed to the elephant, the mouse will be parched; if the water is equally distributed to the elephant and the mouse, the elephant will be parched, if the water is limited, the two will eventually be parched.
由此可見，資源分配極不平等，會扼殺多元性；資源分配極平等，亦會扼殺多元性。因此，資源分配，以恰可維持多元性為準；若有剩餘，以可良性循環者為先。	It is noted that, extremely unequal resource distribution kills the diversity, and extremely equal resource distribution also kills the diversity. Hence, the resource shall be distributed in the way that the diversity is exactly preserved; if there is remnant, one who brings a virtuous circle deserves the priority.
資源，係指事實上資源及法律上資源而言。	Resources are referred to factual resources and legal resources.

唯一死刑之改革 Reformation of Mandatory Death Penalty

唯一死刑，係指對於特定重罪，法院僅得判處死刑而言。	The mandatory death penalty means a court decision setting where judicial discretion is limited to death penalty.
對於唯一死刑，大法官解釋釋字第二六三號認為：「不分犯罪之情況及其結果如何，概以死刑為法定刑，立法甚嚴，有導致情法失平之虞，宜在立法上兼顧人民權利及刑事政策妥為檢討。」	Regarding the mandatory death penalty, Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 263 states that, "imposing a mandatory death penalty on those who commit such crimes regardless of their details and results is indeed very rigorous, and may create an imbalance between the legal system and the people's sense of justice."
為此，應廢除「唯一」死刑，轉而提供「多元」死刑，諸如槍決、注射或煤氣等人道死刑，以供法院依個案情況裁量選擇，俾保障人權、促進法治。	Accordingly, the mandatory death penalty shall be abolished, and there shall be provided with various death penalties by humanitarian methods such as shooting, lethal injection or coal gas chamber, for the court to choose therefrom based on the discretion in a specific case, in order to protect the human rights and promote the rule of law.

勞動動物 Animal Laborans

漢娜‧鄂蘭於《人之條件》最末節所稱「勞動動物」，與書名所稱「人」有別[1]，固無疑義。	The term "animal laborans" Hannah Arendt used in the last section of The Human Condition shall be distinguished from the term "human" she used in the title of the book[1].
現實之中，人之所以為人之活動，苟隨勞動動物之所欲，無不降格，乃人之條件，付之烏有。	In our experience in the reality, the activities showing human values are always degraded as participated by animal laborans. In this way, no human condition can be retained.
是勞動動物對於該等活動，不得作為主體；已誤為主體而為行為者，宣告其行為無效。	Thus, animal laborans is not allowed to participate in such activities. An action mistakenly conducted by animal laborans shall be declared legally invalid.

---

Notes:

[1]

勞動動物與人有別云者，非謂兩者不可同屬單一個體。

The sentence "animal laborans shall be distinguished from human" does not mean the two cannot be in an individual.

有條件票票等值 Conditionally Equal Suffrage

慎思明辨之人，與道聽塗說、盲從迷信、貪財好賄之人，自不應票票等值，否則智痴相抵，不進反退。	A considerate person shall not have a voting right equal to that of a rumor believer, a blind follower, or a bribe acceptor, otherwise, the ignorance may cancel out the knowledge, and the society may backslide.
然我憲政至今，民智漸開，為立基多元，冀求方向，斯時票票等值，則有實益。	However, since we have carried out a constitutional country, up to now, the citizen's knowledge keeps raising, then it is beneficial for us to have equal suffrage, for realizing a multicultural future.

判處死刑應否論究教化之可能？ Shall We Discuss the Possibility of Repentance before Sentencing a Capital Punishment?

社會依民意設立刑罰，無非為社會之續存。人因社會化不完全而犯法，致入罪服刑，雖甚憐憫之，僅得依法減免之，否則社會勢必動盪。是社會之自決，有所犧牲，不得已也。	The society has established the criminal punishment according to the public will on purpose of society's sustainability. We feel sorry for an incompletely socialized person committing criminal, being sentenced guilty and thus being punished, but we may only reduce or remit his punishment according to the laws, otherwise, the society will be in chaos. Within the society's decision, we cannot help but make a sacrifice.
刑罰除有教化之功能外，尚有應報之效果，故教化之可否與應報之應否，應併予審酌。倘應報之應然已趨於無限，再論究教化之可能，實屬多餘。	The criminal punishment has not only the function of repentance but also the effect of retribution, so we shall consider both the possibility of repentance and the necessity of retribution before sentencing a criminal punishment. However, if the necessity of retribution approaches to infinity, it becomes superfluous to discuss the possibility of repentance.
被告殺害[1]恩人、陌生人，已經確證[2]者，應受無限之應報，無庸論究其教化之可能，即得判處死刑。至於被告受被害人身體上或精神上凌虐，進而起意殺害之者，其應報之應然既為有限，則其教化之可能，即有論究之必要。	A defendant clearly proved[2] killing[1] his benefactor or a stranger shall deserve infinite retribution, so we may sentence him to a capital punishment without discussing the possibility of his repentance. While in the case of a defendant suffering physical or mental abuse from the victim and thus killing the victim on purpose, since the necessity of his retribution is finite, it becomes necessary to discuss the possibility of his repentance.

---

Notes:

[1]	過失致死，不在此限。	It does not include negligently causing death.
[2]	尤應注意「確」字。	Notice the word "clearly".

專業之威信 The Prestige of Profession

專業之認定，依法律；無法律者，依習慣。但政治之運作[1]，無專業可言。	A profession affair shall be certified by laws; if there is no law, by customs. But the works of politics[1] cannot be professional.
質疑專業，應具名並附具理由，始得為之。	A person shall show his name and give a reason when he doubts a professional affair.
前項理由，應包括下列各款之一： 質疑人為該種專業人員者，其意見。 質疑人諮詢該種專業人員者，該專業人員之姓名及意見。 質疑人查詢該種專業文獻者，該專業文獻之資訊及引文或引文標示。	The reason in the preceding paragraph shall include one of the following items: For the doubter being a professional in regard to the affair, his opinion. For the doubter having sought advice from a professional in regard to the affair, the professional's name and opinion. For the doubter having searched a guide from a document in regard to the affair, the document's information, and the quoted passage or the indication of the quoted passage.
質疑違反第二項規定者，視為[2]誣疑；其意見，視為無理由。但擬制之效力，於瑕疵補正時解除之。	A doubt violating the prescription in the second paragraph shall be deemed[2] a false doubt; the opinion in the doubt shall be deemed meritless. But the effects of the deems shall be rescinded when the defects are corrected.
專業受誣疑人介入者，即非專業，其致生損害時，專業人員視為無過失。	A professional affair interfering by a false doubter becomes an unprofessional affair, and when it causes damages, the professional shall be deemed not of negligence.

---

Notes:

[1]	政治之研究，尤有專業可言。	The researches of politics can still be professional.
[2]	視為，不得推翻。	A deem is an irrebuttable presumption.

論霸凌 On Bullying

【霸凌之定義】	[The Definition of Bullying]
霸凌，係指下列情事之一： 無理由[1]而損害當事人。 有理由而損害當事人過當[2]。	Bullying means one of the following affairs: To damage a person for no reason[1]. To overly[2] damage a person for reason.
【霸凌之客觀原因】	[The Objective Reason for Bullying]
霸凌，肇因於個體或群體欲展現其主觀上[3]生物優質性，而否定特定特別[4]個體或特定特別群體。	Bullying is caused by the denial of a certain special[4] individual or a certain special colony by an individual or a colony which wants to show the subjectively[3] biological superiority thereof.
【霸凌之效力】	[The Effect of Bullying]
霸凌，有害於生物多元性。	Bullying is detrimental to biological variety.
【霸凌之判斷】	[The Determination of Bullying]
在生物優質性與多元性之競合下，應依〈保有群體多元性之個體維生閥值設定〉判斷損害之必要性。	In a conflict between biological superiority and biological variety, we shall determine the necessity of damage according to The Individual Living Threshold Setup for Preserving the Colonial Variety.

---

Notes:

[1]	包括：理由不備及理由不適當。	Including the cases in which the reason is short and the reason is inappropriate.
[2]	不符比例原則。	Out of proportionality.
[3]	自以為。	Self-righteously.
[4]	包括：特別優質及特別劣質	Including specially good and specially bad.

殺人的精神病患得如何處置？ How to Deal with a Psychotic Killer

我國《刑法》明文規定：「行為時因精神障礙或其他心智缺陷，致不能辨識其行為違法或欠缺依其辨識而行為之能力者，不罰。」因此，殺人的精神病患是無罪的。	The Criminal Code prescribes that, "it is guiltless for a person who is unable to recognize his behavior to be illegal or lacks ability to behave according to his recognition, due to mental disorder or other mental defects during his behavior." Hence, a psychotic killer is guiltless.
然而，病情嚴重到會殺人的精神病患，還算是人嗎？如果他還算是人，他就應該負起人的責任；如果他已經不算是人，他就是產物。	However, shall a psychotic killer being so serious that he kills people be deemed a person? If he shall be deemed a person, he shall take the responsibility as a person; while if he shall not be deemed a person, he shall be deemed a product.
人們對危險到會殺人的產物，總會先嘗試修復它；無法修復它的話，只好毀棄它，以免它再度殺人。這是理所當然的。ˊ	Dealing with a product being so dangerous that it kills people, we always try to repair it at first, but if we cannot repair it, we cannot help but destroy it, to avoid it from killing people again. This is reasonable.
殺人的精神病患，經過治療出院後，再度殺人的話，顯然證明它無法被修復，因此，它應該被毀棄。	If a psychotic killer treated kills people again after leaving the hospital, it proves it is irreparable, and it shall be destroyed.
而我們毀棄殺人的精神病患的方法，並非將它處死，只是剝奪它的生命。兩者的差別，可參考〈死刑（其之二）〉	By the way, the method to destroy a psychotic killer is not a capital punishment, but a deprival of its life. Check The Capital Pushement (Part2) to see the difference between the two.

死刑（其之二） The Capital Punishment (Part 2)

對某甲處以死刑，與剝奪其生命，兩者有別。諸如：對草木不可處以死刑，但可剝奪其生命。其間差異，在乎人格。	It is different between giving a capital punishment to one and depriving one of life. For example, we cannot give a capital punishment to plants, but we can deprive plants of lives. The difference between the two cases comes from personality.
是以雖〈死刑（其之一）〉謂：「罪重至死者既屬非人，遂無從定罪施刑，至於死刑亦不可得。」惟對非人剝奪其生命，尚非不可。	Therefore, even if in The Capital Punishment (Part 2), I have said, "if a criminal is guilty of death, since he is deemed a subhuman, we cannot judge and punish him, and the capital punishment is ineligible to him as well." However, we can still deprive the subhuman of life.

五育之分割評價 Respective Evaluation for the Five Educations

不同因次之項，固不可共量也，故令德、智、體、群、美五育加總平均，乃當代至愚之創舉！	The terms with different dimensions are incommensurable, of course, so it is the most stupid creation in contemporary society to sum up and average one's points in the five educations, which are moral, intellectual, social, physical, and aesthetic educations.
德不行，而智、體、群、美皆百分之人，其身價得八十分歟？惟長才盡用之於邪謀，豈非恐怖？	For one who got 0 point in moral education but 100 points in each of intellectual, social, physical, and aesthetic educations, shall we give him 80 points as his social status? Think about the case he makes use of all his advantages in evil plans, is it not terrifying?
德百分，而智、體、群、美皆不行之人，其身價得二十分歟？雖無功勞，亦無妨害。	For one who got 100 points in moral education but 0 point in each of intellectual, social, physical, and aesthetic educations, shall we give him 20 points as his social status? Even if he is not contributive, he is not detrimental as well.
德歸德，智歸智、體歸體、群歸群、美歸美，應分割而評價焉。	We shall respectively evaluate one's moral, intellectual, social, physical, and aesthetic educations.

以命被告作文為修復式司法之嘗試 A Try for Restorative Justice by Instructing the Defendant to Write Compositions

造惡之徒，固有其罪。惟不曉諭罪業深重而純徒之，或命以金錢具保，則被告無意於懺悔，被害人亦無感於正義。斯刑之本意，失之無形。	A criminal is guilty for sure. However, if we do not let him know how guilty his behavior is, and just put him into jail, or let him be bailed by money, the defendant will not repent, and the victim will feel no justice as well. Thus, the punishment will gradually lose its meaning.
今推事命被告作文，以為諸裁量之參考，其旨趣盎然矣！蓋欲作文，心必靜謐；心生靜謐，始得思過。所思之過，具體化現作文之中。相形於言語、模樣，諒必嘔心絞腦，無以造作，俾被害人觀諸此等竭誠之文字，愈可得深層之慰藉，寧許昇華為人文上和解。	In this time, the judge instructed the defendant to write compositions, and took the compositions as references for measurements. I think it to be interesting. Since when writing a composition, a person will be in silence, and only in silence can he begin to repent. Finally, his repentance will materialize in his compositions. Comparing to oral and facial expressions, the compositions need more painstaking efforts, and we can check them out. They may be a comfort for the victim when reading those sincere words in the compositions. By this, we wish the defendant and the victim can further reach a humane compromise.
又被告作文於遣詞立意遇有瓶頸時，自須謙問，始得受教，一來二去，雖非可觀，不乏教益也。且被告於謙問之際，與親友師長往來互動，自然彌補曾經之疏離，而悄萌更生之契機。	Moreover, when confronting with expression difficulties, the defendant has to modestly ask for help. Once or twice after, he will more or less learn something, and by asking for help, the defendant will interact with his families, friends, teachers or superiors, and naturally they will be more closer to each other than before. This will bring the defendant more opportunity for life renewal.
此等作文之法，於心智未熟之徒，尤其有效。其被告無可塑性者，自不適用；至於過失犯，如本無惡意可供反省，尚無適用之餘地。適而用之，調而解之，推而廣之，知者引領之。	The instruction for composition is especially effective for a mentally immature criminal. While it is not applicable to a defendant with an inflexible character, and we also have no idea to apply it to a negligence conductor, for he has no malice to repent at all. If we can apply it to the right cases, we can mediate the arguments, and we can popularize it step by step, and then the intelligentsia will join us.

最佳化審判結果 The Optimum Judgement Result

案件基於其法定[1]參數[2]經程序化[3]審判所得之結果即係其全域最佳化[4]審判結果。

A case with the result from the programmed[3] judgement based on the statutory[1] parameters[2] thereof is of the globally optimum[4] judgement result thereof.

---

Notes:

[1]	法定者，法律也，乃時代之產物。各時代之法律，必不全然相同，實則民意更迭使然。民意者，民眾之意識形態也。惟查古時法律，要為統治者所創設，何來民意之有？蓋古時民眾未受啟蒙，聽信統治者而不知爭執，任憑其立法，又甘願受其統治矣。然民眾所不知、所任憑、所甘願者，亦屬民意之一環，故上開斷言，於理未有不合。	The word "statutory" means of laws, and the laws is an outcome of generation. The laws in each generations are partially different. They change with public will. The word "public will" means the ideology which the public believes in a generation. However, in the ancient times, the laws were mostly enacted by dominators, so was there any public will in the enactment of the laws? We consider that, in the ancient times, the public had not been enlightened, so they easily trusted their dominator, not knowing to argue with their rights, letting the dominator enact the law at his own will, willing to be reigned by him. However, the unknown, letting, and willing of the public are also kinds of public will, therefore, said assertion is sensible indeed.
[2]	實體法部分。	Of substantive laws.
[3]	訴訟法部分。	Of procedural laws.
[4]	或攀今比昔，以論法律之進步，純為人情所託，不為智識所採。各時代之法律，不可共量，故不得爭執，致確定判決在全域時空中已完成案件權利義務之最佳化分配。	Many people compare the laws in the present time and in the past time and conclude that, the laws are in progress, but in fact, the progress is an illusion from human feeling, not the reality with practical knowledge. The laws in each generations are incommensurable, so we shall not argue about their good and bad, thus, if a sentence becomes definitive, since it also becomes inarguable in history, we deem it having completed the optimum allocation of the right and the obligation for the very case in the global spacetime.

天國籍之取得 Acquisition of Heaven Citizenship

天國，以神為最高權力及意思表示機關，而基於神體之圓滿不容分割，無權力分立之可能，與地上之國有別。	Heaven, of which God is the supreme organization for power and expression of intent, due to the perfection and indivisibility of the essence of God, is impossible for power division, and is different to the nations on earth.
天國之嚮往，成就於天國籍之取得。惟係行使何種權利所得？	Yearning for Heaven will be implemented by acquisition of Heaven citizenship. But what right is exercising in the case?
經查：人與天國，固為相對之兩造。	Firstly, we consider that, a person and Heaven are two parties against each other.
第查前開權利如係： 請求權、抗辯權者。惟非賴更超越之第三方無以裁判、執行，而為主張，了無實益。 支配權者，必需客體始得行使。惟上開客體倘係物化天國而得，有違人意；又倘係物化人而得，有違神意，洵無可採，今既無客體，要無支配之可能。	Secondly, we consider foresaid right as: a right to claim or right to defense. But without a transcendent third party to make a judgement and go on an execution, there is no actual profit when asserting them. a right to dominate, which shall be exercising with an object. But if said object comes from materializing Heaven, it is counter to a person's wish, as well as if said object comes from materializing a person, it is counter to God's wish, thus we cannot find any object in the case, and since no object is here, no domain is possible.
故除形成權外，別無其他。申言之，依神律對天國籍所定之要件，人以單方意思即得入不入天國。蓋意思不經表示，已為神所透視，使天國籍在自由心證形成之際，發生得喪。	Therefore, it cannot be any other rights than a right to form. Moreover, according to the requirement prescribed in God's laws, a person may enter Heaven or not by his one-party intent. Note that, an intent is unnecessary to be expressed, and is seen through by God, such that a person gets or loses his Heaven citizenship, just at the moment he forms his free evaluation.