1982年美国最高法院对United States v. Goodwin案的判决。在Goodwin案中，辩诉双方未达成协议，接受法院审理。当时检方增加了指控罪名。被告人在辩护中声称受到检方的“恶意报复”，最高法院回应：“在辩诉交易未成的情况下”增加指控并不意味着存在报复行为；同时重申辩诉交易可以提高效率，从而保证了国家利益。
（b）（1）男童星柯里汉姆（Corey Haim）13岁时被男星查理辛（Charlie Sheen）性侵。之后还必须保持同他的来往，保持被他性侵，只是为了保住饭碗而已。性侵让汉姆长期抑郁，后染上毒品，最后过量服药死亡，死时38岁。（2）著名导演贝纳尔多·贝托鲁奇承认，他同马龙·白兰度联手策划了对19岁女演员玛利亚·施奈德的强暴戏，理由是为了看到一个女孩被强奸的反应，而非演员的演戏。玛丽娅因为这部电影患了抑郁症，并染上毒瘾；一蹶不振，最后走上了的毁灭道路。恰恰相反，贝托鲁奇和白兰度不但没有受到惩罚，反而越来越成功，所以敢到死都坚称“当时的决定完全没错，是为了拍出史奈德最真实的反应”。（3）男星安东尼瑞普（Anthony Rapp）指控，1986年他14岁时，奥斯卡影帝凯文史贝西(Kevin Spacey)曾试图占他便宜。安东尼瑞普揭露丑闻後，有更多的人站出来指控凯文史贝西性侵。史贝西身边的许多工作人员一直都知道他是性侵惯犯，但三十多年来，他却从来没有任何麻烦。借韦恩斯坦事件的东风，他2017年才遇到麻烦。（4）2019年，Forever In Your Mind 的歌星瑞奇贾西亚控告经纪人、英国电视名人乔比哈特（Joby Harte）性侵、强奸。在他12岁未出道前，就开始了，甚至还找业界的朋友一起分享。这样的日子连续四年，平均每七天就发生1次，也就是超过两百次。
导演艾米·博格 （Amy J. Berg）有纪录片《大急救》(Deliver Us from Evil)揭露天主教性侵，得到2006年奥斯卡提名。2014年她制作的纪录片
《公开的秘密》
（An Open Secret：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjr3FB5mBYQ）却遭受了前所未有的阻碍，在整个好莱坞都找不到发行商，最后只能自己公布在视频网站vimeo，免费观看。这是一部揭露在好莱坞的背后存在的一个恋童癖产业链。在纪录片《公开的秘密》片中，她走访了5位曾被行业大佬性侵的童星，并且曝光了7位涉案人员。6年过去，当年纪录片里的业内恋童大佬们绝大部分人都过着舒适逍遥的生活，继续和儿童在一起，甚至共事。
2020年迪士尼偶像组合 Forever in Your Mind 成员 Ricky Garcia 将经纪人Joby Harte告上法庭：从2011年，他12岁起被性侵、强奸，几乎每周都被叫到经纪人家中参加"通宵写歌会 "，重复被灌酒、昏迷，然后被性侵、强奸，经纪人甚至把他像物品一样送给其他经纪人、制片人。这种性侵持续了 4 年时间，到他 16 岁才基本停止。很多时候，这些性侵都是公开的。好莱坞的晚宴，庆功会，其实更像是这些禽兽对男孩们的掠食大会。Ricky知道“只要一不注意，在这里得罪一个有权势的人，一辈子的事业都毁了。”，所以他象那些性侵犯愿意隐瞒事实。到2018年，他才敢说出来，并传到了他妈妈那里。家人向洛杉矶警方报警。但警方从来没有找Ricky做过详细笔录。2019年2月，地方检察官决定不予起诉，此案就此结案，理由是没有足够的证据。迪士尼人力资源部对此事是进行调查，结果是不了了之。
The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
Friday, November 23, 1787；Author: James Madison
To the People of the State of New York:
AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. 【本文主旨：建立合众国最重要的是防止利益集团或政党之害】。The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. 【利益集团，朋党组织。】
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.【民主之害，一治本，二管控】
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.【具体化的平等】
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.【自由是更高原则。显而易见，自由更加是保护少数富人的权利（特别是不平等的经济、政治、文化、司法特权）必不可缺的条件。】
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties. 【本质的反民主，而且反任何理论与实践上的平等，而结党营私的朋党组织是自然的，合理的。也是反卢梭而用之。】
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. 【少数富裕人阶级之内的不同阶层。美国政治的现实是只有他们才能进入博弈场，参加利益爭斗。这一点，美国父们是心知肚明的。】
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.【人之天性到政党之天性。公平正义是指导原则，但仅仅是就保护少数富裕的人的权利而言。公平正义很明显是被否定的，如果涉及多数不富裕人的权利。因为谈论富人阶级的不同阶层当时所面临的重大问题，影响力更大。】
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.【结论。以后就是如何做到这一点的术了。】
If a faction consists of less than a majority（两种不同的多数：整体公民中的多数，与决策委员会中的多数）, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind. 【美国政治制度具体的、技术的设计总原则。有意识地掩盖了人类社会的历史事实，最终还是少数富裕人的利益。参考孟子、卢梭论。】
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.【可以参考马基雅维利有关罗马共和国的讨论，麦迪逊的讨论至少是片面的不正确。】
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations: 【修改民意是必要的】
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage. 【与民主制度下的政治现实几乎完全相反！】
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
【一个大合众国比一个个独立的州好。
不是代表人民，而是由民选的超越人民的决策者。修改民意（违背大多数人民的要求）是正确且必要的。
如其说是道理，不如说是态度。辩论而言，自相矛盾处很多。
一个替代：少数富裕人阶级的利益=国家利益。】
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.【一个坚决、有效地反民主制度的，有效地修正的能保护少数富人权利的共和制的合众国。】
所谓民主是指制度和法规必须代表大众的意愿，绝不是任何人都可以为所欲为。在民主社会，制定好的法律是可以严格执行的。 比如说，如果在美国大众需要隔离来抗传染病的话，卫生系统是有权力采取强硬措施的，不需要等待“领导”来下达严防死守的指示。
我们从一个对小老百姓来说是最重要，也是国家对人民最根本的责任来观察：司法体系的公平正义。很显然，根本没有美国人把美国宪法第六修正案当回事。
美国宪法第六修正案是：在一切刑事诉讼中，被告有权由犯罪行为发生地的州和地区的公正陪审团予以迅速和公开的审判，该地区应事先已由法律确定；得知控告的性质和理由；同原告证人对质；以强制程序取得对其有利的证人；并取得律师帮助为其辩护。
美国宪法第六修正案是保证所有被告人在一切刑事诉讼中的公开审判，法院辩护的权利。今天美国联邦法院和各州法院90%的案件是以检察官处理的辩诉交易判决。美国司法制度现实是：不再开庭审查、法官判决的美国司法实践。开庭审查、判决是人性要求的，人类最基本的人权，也是美国宪法保正的，但是今天在美国被告人如果想要获得这个权利，他们是真实可能的要面临数倍，数十倍，甚至上百倍的更严重的司法惩罚。整个美国司法系统，整个美国人民是根本不把美国宪法当回事。
一:美国司法运作的真面目是检察官决定的辩诉交易判决
美国有三种神圣的司法判决：一有陪审团的法院开庭审判，二无陪审团的法院开庭审判，三检察官决定的辩诉交易判决。辩诉交易判决（Plea Bargain）实质上是检察官决定的。在法院开庭审理之前，作为控诉方的检察官和被告人进行协商。检察官以撤销指控、降格指控、要求法官从轻判处刑罚等为条件，换取被告人认罪，双方达成协议。法院根据协议判决。英国，法国，意大利，德国，加拿大，西班牙，爱尔兰，以色列等国家都实行这种方式的司法审判。
美国联邦最高法院是在1970年正式确认了辩诉交易的合法性。今天美国联邦法院和各州法院90%的案件是以辩诉交易结案。检察官处理的辩诉交易判决，而不是法院审判，是美国司法运作的真正的面目，今天的美国司法制度现实是：不再开庭审查、法官判决的美国司法实践，可以说法院在美国司法判决中的作用是微不足道的。所以美国司法制度的鉴定必须由，也只能由辩诉交易判决来审定。
我们看一些资料。1976年美国联邦法院每100件民事侵权案中还有10件开庭审判（属于第一、第二类型开庭审判）。2008年时，只有1%的民事案件开庭审判结案，4%的刑事案开庭审判结案（刑事案的审判是必须有陪审团审判）。2010年时，全美联邦法院中平均每100件定罪的刑事案中有97件不经由法院审判，而是通过辩诉交易结案。虽然美国的各种类型的案件不断的增加，但2003年全美的联邦法院民事侵权案开庭审判的数量大约是1985的五分之一。
以纽约市为例。1990年有300名法官、500名检察官和1000名律师，在处理刑事犯罪中用辩诉交易。以严重犯罪案为例，逮捕是118000人次。54％在侦查阶段就达成辩诉交易，其余46％按重罪起诉到法院。在法院审理中，83.3％案件再达成辩诉交易；9．3％因证据不足撤销案件；仅7．4％按正式程序开庭审判。
检察官决定的辩诉交易判决，不但直接的、恶劣的违反司法公平正义的原则，而且制造大量的冤假错案。这在理论与实践上都是确定的。所以在辩诉交易判决广泛实行后一百多年，美国联邦最高法院才确认了辩诉交易的合法性。美国联邦最高法院1971年在一个判决中指出：“如果每一项刑事指控均要经受完整的司法审判，那么州政府和联邦政府需要将法官的数量和法院的设施增加不知多少倍。”。还有一个强有力的、公开的理由是“如果明令禁止辩诉交易，美国刑事审判体系就会崩溃，因为交易不会就此消失，它将会以一种更为隐蔽的方式继续存在而且比现在更缺少法律保障”。辩诉交易结案是为了方便，或者直截了当地说是为了省钱。
一般在立案后，检察官就开始同被告律师谈辩诉交易，当然是用“利”与“害”来说服被告人。无非是认罪的话，检察官就选择不用比较重的罪名与证据，而是用较轻的罪名起诉；检察官可以建议法官轻判。不认罪的话，检察官就用最重罪名起诉；如果审判有罪，检察官就建议法官用最高的刑罚。检察官降格指控，如故意杀人降为过失杀人,抢劫降为盗窃,强奸降为性骚扰等,当然是可以不指控其中最重大的犯罪事实。两种之间，刑罚常常相差几倍至数十倍之多。这是大框框，已经毫无公平正义可言，而细节则更是魔鬼。
如果被告没有律师，检察官根本不会考虑认罪交易，因为辩诉交易中有许多不能摆上桌面的潜规则，甚至直接违反美国法律。检察官会担心被告不懂江湖规矩，在庭上捅出了不该公开的讨价还价细节，出现难堪的局面。如果通过律师充当中间人谈，即使被告在庭上捅出这些内容，不仅检察官否认，被告的律师也不会承认。这一否认，检察官与律师就没有问题了。
法官有量刑权。所以在正常情况下，认罪协议上，被告认罪，不能写明辩诉双方同意的刑期条款，而是由法官决定刑罚。于是，实际上检察官和辩方的律师明明私下讲好认罪的交换条件，法官清楚明白这些花样，但是在向法官递交认罪协议时，检察官、被告、法官三方必须在法庭一起上演一场戏。
首先法官要被告手按圣经宣誓：我保证只说真话，不说假话。被告向法庭承诺自己认罪是完全自愿，没有被诱导或者胁迫。辩诉交易当然涉及交换条件，可是法庭上法官还要假惺惺地问被告有没有谈交换条件，而被告则必须在圣经宣誓下说假话：“没有。”一问一答，都有录音或录像记录存档。只要一个回答与标准不符，法官是当场拒绝认罪协议。如果被告实话实说，说出签署协议时检察官答应的条件，这就犯了江湖大忌。检察官通常会勃然大怒，断然否认，并宣布撤销与被告达成的认罪协议。检察官随后修改的起诉书不仅要增加起诉罪名，而且这新增的控罪比原有的要重得多。目前，美国司法界达成认罪交易的案件占总体定罪案件的97%，这种法庭程序实际上是是美国法庭最大规模、最为普及、由法官亲自参与和导演的造假活动。
检察官事实上拥有了起诉被告、判断证据、审判事实、量刑惩罚的四位一体司法权力。检察官在绝大多数案件中还包揽了法官和陪审团的职能。在辩诉交易里，为了帮助贫穷人的公共辩护人制度已经面目全非。公共辩护人就成检察官与被告谈交易的中间人。他的功能成了帮助检察官说服或逼迫被告认罪。
我们再回头看纽约的维权组织无辜者专案的资料。它帮助312名在狱囚犯洗脱罪名。其中29人，大约占10%，是被迫认罪的，但实际上是无辜者，他们向警检方“坦白交代”了虚构的犯罪。有一些关于辩诉交易产生的冤假错案的研究，如Scott 和 Stuntz （1992），Wright （2005)都是大学教授。结论是35%至69%的被告人本应当赢得诉讼却因为辩诉交易而被定罪。触目惊心吧，可以比较肯定地说，这个研究结论是可信的。美国哥伦比亚大学法学院调查1973年以来美国所有走完了上诉程序的5760个死刑案例，结论是在法院一审中，60%的死刑案的判刑是严重错误的，必须在重审中改判。
人性是，真正的罪犯比较容易与检方达成认罪交易，以期获得轻判；越是罪证确实，越愿意认罪而减少惩罚。无辜者倾向拒绝检方的认罪交易，更有意愿通过审判还自己一个清白。显而易见的真相是，司法制度越是没有公平正义，政治制度越是暗无天日，社会文化风俗越是不分“是非、善恶、对错”，越是多的人愿意选择认罪交易判刑，越是高比例的有人是可以赢得诉讼但宁愿选择辩诉交易而被定罪。
如下例，由读者自己选吧：
2007年发生在纽约一个华人家庭的案件。一个两月大的女婴突然猝死，解剖结论是女婴疑似遭剧烈摇晃致死，她的父母李航彬和李英立刻被逮捕。检方最终开出如下的辩诉交易：【“认罪，李航彬判刑300天，李英无罪释放；不接受认罪交易，交由陪审团审判，如果被判有罪，李航彬刑期25年至终身监禁，李英判15年。”】。如果再告诉大家一个事实：女婴剧烈摇晃致死案件是一种高专业、高技术性的案子，必须聘请多位高知名度的专家提供有利、有力的证词，才有机会合理的影响陪审团。
1982年美国最高法院对United States v. Goodwin案的判决。在Goodwin案中，辩诉双方未达成协议，接受法院审理。当时检方增加了指控罪名。被告人在辩护中声称受到检方的“恶意报复”，最高法院回应：“在辩诉交易未成的情况下”增加指控并不意味着存在报复行为；同时重申辩诉交易可以提高效率，从而保证了国家利益。
2017年闹的沸沸扬扬的影视界的性侵案，原因是什么？在西方靠工作养家糊口的人都心里有数吧。天底下没有讲法的地方，更没有讲理的地方！如果你想在影视界混，你就只有一条路可走：捧好那些能决定你饭碗的人，接受他们的一切性侵，欺凌。好莱坞有多久，演员们的性侵就有多久，这是大家都知道的事情。还是举一些事例。
（a）哈维韦恩斯坦（Harvey Weinstein）是韦恩斯坦影业（TWC）的掌门人、米拉麦克斯公司的创始人。30多年来他是好莱坞呼风唤雨的金牌制作人，他选定、捧红演员们；他控制着电影制作的资本和发行渠道，因此也掌握了许多导演与演员的命运。（1）30多年来他性侵女性演员、模特、同事。这是公开的秘密，韦恩斯坦常说他已经习惯了性侵她人；川普总统都知道。一二十年来有许多人向警察局直接举报过，并且有确凿的证据。尽管如此，多少大神级的西方民主自由人权的代言人是他的坐上宾，是他的好朋友：克林顿全家，欧巴马全家，欧普拉（Oprah Winfrey），Meryl Streep等。2004年，英国女王授予他爵士勋位。多少大人物，小人物在被他性侵以后，还在公开场合一个劲地赞扬韦恩斯坦，关心韦恩斯坦。你可以看到：在西方社会，是没有人敢得罪，敢说管着他们的人们不喜欢的话。（2）《纽约时报》报道，韦恩斯坦曾有八次性侵后用钱摆平麻烦，避免吃官司的案件。有录音证据：女子在走廊上苦苦哀求，不愿进韦恩斯坦酒店房间。（3）目前有八十多个人指控他性侵、强奸，包括安洁莉娜裘莉（Angelina Jolie）、葛妮丝派特罗（Gwyneth Paltrow），萝丝麦高文（Rose McGowan），艾什莉·贾德（Ashley Judd），露皮塔·尼永奥（Lupita Nyong'o）， Lea Seydoux。韦恩斯坦经常告许别人，他同谁上了床。在韦恩斯坦点名的许多女性，很少有人站出来，承认有这么回事。（4）象安洁莉娜裘莉等大明星将自己被韦恩斯坦性侵的事情告诉了自己的丈夫或情人。这些同样是大明星，当他们知道自己的老婆被他性侵后，仍然同韦恩斯坦保持亲近友好的关系，因为要在影视界混饭吃，就需要做他的朋友。可见韦恩斯坦的无法无天是有资本的。金钱就是权力。每日邮报、纽约时报报道，韦恩斯坦无法无天的另一个办法就是花钱雇情报人员专门侦探、收集女演员们的隐私，记者们的隐私。任何对他有价值的隐私。他还伙同警察一起要挟、打击敢站出来的人。（5）2008年，韦恩斯坦在娜塔莎·迈尔兹(Natassia Malthe)住的宾馆房间里强奸了她。第二天又叫她来自己的房间谈电影《九》（Nine）的剧本。她还是来了，但没有同韦恩斯一起玩3P，更失去《九》的演出机会。他性侵了塞尔玛·海耶克（Salma Hayek）之后，还敢以“我会杀掉你”来威胁她，还成功地让她演她真不愿意演的同性性交的电影。（6）2018年韦恩斯坦的助理Sandeep Rehal到法院起诉：“2013年她26岁开始工作时, 就开始遭受到无休止的侮辱性的、性骚扰的行为、言论”。2015年2月Rehal被迫辞职。韦恩斯坦要她做的工作有准备性药物，清理办公室、房间性事后的现场 。（7）在2018年第71届戛纳电影节颁奖礼上，Asia Argento发言：1997年，她21岁时，就在这个戛纳电影节被哈维·韦恩斯坦强奸，“这个电影节就是他的捕猎场”。当时有人知道这件事，他还替韦恩斯坦掩盖了罪行。那个人今天就坐在这里，坐在你们中间。如果你看事件的细节，不难得出结论：罪犯是肆无忌惮，因为知道自己是绝对安全的；受害人也知道如果自己想混口饭吃，就不能与罪犯发生直接的冲突。当时的情景：她被制片人邀请去杜章酒店参加行业派对，没想到这是个圈套，她被送往一间酒店客房，哈维·韦恩斯坦就在里面等候她。哈维先是要求她给自己按摩，之后又让她张开双腿，无视她的再三请求，强行给她口j。她多次反抗无用，曾一度假装享受过程来麻醉自己。1999年她导演了一部电影：Scarlet Diva。其中有一位肥胖猥琐的制片人在宾馆里性侵女主角（她自己主演）的情节。电影上映后有不少人都认出这个制片人的原型就是韦恩斯坦本人，那又能怎么样？！(8)2019年，庭审前在纽约州检察长办公室里，温斯坦同意以4400万美元与几个案件受害者达成和解协议。签完协议，温斯坦就没有罪了。能够签协议拿钱的人们，是控告有足够的法律效果的人们。一家电视台的主播劳伦·西万，也是温斯坦性侵的受害者，但没有控告他。劳伦说：“我为这个消息感到激动。我认为这协议很棒。对于受害者来说，标志性的胜利是好事，因为我认为法律体系还没有跟上#MeToo的社交运动。这些女性挺身而出冒着很大风险。她们中的许多人遭受了强烈抵制并失去了工作机会，一些人仍然被祕密地列入工作黑名单。这表明这些女性是对的，她们遭到了这个男人的错误对待。我们不知道在刑事审判中会发生什么，所以我很高兴听到有关财务和解的事情。”反人类智商的荒唐，对人类进步的讽刺。然而这一切的背后是多么的让人的心疼痛与颤抖。天有绝人之道啊！
（b）（1）男童星柯里汉姆（Corey Haim）13岁时被男星查理辛（Charlie Sheen）性侵。之后还必须保持同他的来往，保持被他性侵，只是为了保住饭碗而已。性侵让汉姆长期抑郁，后染上毒品，最后过量服药死亡，死时38岁。（2）著名导演贝纳尔多·贝托鲁奇承认，他同马龙·白兰度联手策划了对19岁女演员玛利亚·施奈德的强暴戏，理由是为了看到一个女孩被强奸的反应，而非演员的演戏。玛丽娅因为这部电影患了抑郁症，并染上毒瘾；一蹶不振，最后走上了的毁灭道路。恰恰相反，贝托鲁奇和白兰度不但没有受到惩罚，反而越来越成功，所以敢到死都坚称“当时的决定完全没错，是为了拍出史奈德最真实的反应”。（3）男星安东尼瑞普（Anthony Rapp）指控，1986年他14岁时，奥斯卡影帝凯文史贝西(Kevin Spacey)曾试图占他便宜。安东尼瑞普揭露丑闻後，有更多的人站出来指控凯文史贝西性侵。史贝西身边的许多工作人员一直都知道他是性侵惯犯，但三十多年来，他却从来没有任何麻烦。借韦恩斯坦事件的东风，他2017年才遇到麻烦。（4）2019年，Forever In Your Mind 的歌星瑞奇贾西亚控告经纪人、英国电视名人乔比哈特（Joby Harte）性侵、强奸。在他12岁未出道前，就开始了，甚至还找业界的朋友一起分享。这样的日子连续四年，平均每七天就发生1次，也就是超过两百次。
（c）（1）：38位女性公开表示被好莱坞名导演托贝克 (James Toback)性侵。（2）：2018年50多名女性声称被考斯比（Bill Cosby）性侵过，从1960年代开始。（3）：6名女性指控布莱特瑞纳（Brett Ratner）性侵。（4）：演员克莉丝蒂娜柯恩（Kristina Cohen）在脸书指控，3年前，艾德威斯维克（Ed Westwick）在自己住处强暴她。（5）纽约时报：15名男模指控韦伯(Bruce Weber)经常利用拍照时，要求裸露，或者直接伸手抓男模的生殖器；13名男模和助理指控泰斯堤诺(Mario Testino)对他们进行猥亵和手淫等行为。不少模特儿都表示，这是公开的秘密，如果想要在时尚界混下去，就必须学着去接受这两人的骚扰。这两位是世界级的摄影大师。长期以来，韦伯还是英国王室喜爱的摄影师。（6）2006年曾经执导过007电影《择日而亡》的大导演李·塔马胡里（Lee Tamahori）因为涉嫌伪装成女人向男性卖淫被捕。他手下可是俊男美女多的很，没有关于他性侵的报道。
(c) 2020年初，纽约时报发表一篇揭露Victoria’s Secret问题的文章：天使在地狱。之后，一百位多位模特给公司的CEO写了公开信，其中有天下闻名的模特Christy Turlington Burns, Iskra Lawrence, Edie Campbell, Amber Valletta，Felicity Hayward 等.她们要求维多利亚公司停止侮辱、职场霸凌、骚扰、性侵犯的文化。以前曝光维多利亚问题的《纽约时报》称维密和它的母公司L Brands里存在着根深蒂固、公司文化性的问题。这些美丽、性感、时尚，可以和天使一起在T台上自信秀美的超级模特儿们，其实在有点实权管着她们的人们面前，是没有一点点人权与生而为人的尊严。这种公司文化，让一些模特儿们的生活犹如地狱中。数十年来，公司高管Ed Razek就一直被模特和员工们投诉：性侵与报复。他的名言：“你们的职业生涯就掌握在我手中”。员工们的嘴被捂得死死的,投诉往往会石沉大海,站出来的人很快被Razek报复。公司老板 Wexner 多次发表贬低女性的言论，和现在已经是臭名昭著的Jeffrey Epstein关系极深；公司当年对他性侵模特儿们的事情闭着眼睛，装着不知道。维秘前公关员工表示她亲眼目睹了 Razek 的行为。并且很震惊的发现其不当的行为只会被周围人一笑置之，并被视之正常。“大家就像被洗脑了一样，反而是那些没有忽略这种非常态行为的人，他们将受到惩罚”。
这里就介绍一例。2007年，19岁的Andi Muise走上维密的舞台，一颗新星，光芒四射。在她三度登上维密大秀，却突然从维密的舞台上消失了。很多年后，Andi在采访中告诉原因。Razek多次骚扰她；当她拒绝了Razek要求后，没多久就被通知解雇，并被告诉再不会聘用她参加维密时装秀。这里包括多次强吻；反复要求她去他的住处，还说要和她同居。19岁的Andi，当然知道不接受这位业界大佬明的、暗的要求的后果的严重。所以虽然她非常气愤，但她还是用礼貌的方式回绝了他的要求。最后一次是：2008年Razek要求她去他家里吃单独晚餐，Muise没有同意。很快她就得知了，2008年她不会再登上维密的秀场，而且再也没有登上。
（d）2014年，Lady Gaga公开表示，19歲念天主教高中時几乎每天都被一位音樂製作人性侵、强奸，并在2015年作一首校园性侵经历的歌曲，是关于她自己的经历。她遭遇性侵后患上创伤症候群与慢性病，她甚至为此多次自残，更患上了纤维肌痛和严重的创伤反应，当时她说：“就像被反覆强奸了几个月，最后被扔在街角。”她也透露这是会不断出现的感觉，至今尚未痊愈。但她还是没有指名道姓地说罪犯是谁，更不用说报案了。
电影《小太阳的愿望》的童星阿比吉尔布莱斯林（Abigail Breslin），2017年在社交网站上披露曾被强奸，而且认识罪犯。她选择了不报案、不声张，原因是怕没有人相信她，更没有可能打赢官司。同时她还贴了一张RAINN的资料（RAINN：the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network，美国最大的反性暴力机构）在美国平均每一千件强奸案，只有六件强奸人进监狱，即0.6%。美国的民主自由人权和司法公正如果有一点点实质，为什么99.4%的被强奸的人民得不到半点公平正义？人民被强奸都得不到公平正义，什么事情能得到公平正义？被人杀死，政府会管？几十年来，芝加哥平均每天都有两起以上的枪杀死人案，警察的破案率只有10%。
依靠西方司法程序，获得公平正义有多难？了解一下白宫莱温斯基案就知道了。从1995年到1997年,美国总统克林顿与莱温斯基有两年多的性关系。在总统周围的工作人员中是公开的秘密。1996年，莱温斯基的上司担心此事闹出麻烦，将她调到国防部。后来她在电话中向密友透露了她和总统的关系。密友录了音，并透露给政府调查人员。此后，莱温斯基还在一家酒吧里，向密友和盘托出了克林顿同自己发生性关系的事情以及自己作伪证的经过，并且劝说密友不要将这一切公之于世。不仅被崔普偷偷录音，6名联邦特工也进行了监听。在美国共和党的全力支持下，国家独立检察官斯塔尔专门调查下，最后是要靠那件后来举世闻名的蓝色连衣裙判定，因为上面有克林顿的DNA。若非小姐多情，想保留总统的液体作永恒的纪念，如此有强大实力、大规模的调查结果是证明克林顿无罪，是一件实际可能的事。
既然判强奸犯有罪是如此的困难，那警察是如何对待收集证据的呢。2018年CNN有一个报道：美国警方竟然大量销毁还未检测过的强奸证据。强奸受害者一般要经历三到五小时的全面检查。CNN调查发现，对于确定嫌疑人非常重要DNA数据，虽然收集了样本，但80%都没有做检测。有400起强奸案里，检测证据象垃圾一样被丢掉。这些证据并没有超过上诉期限，有的只有几周就销毁。销毁了强奸证据，强奸犯就永远不可能定罪了。CNN调查还发现，警方提前销毁了47个孩子受害的证据。很明显，警察想都不想破案，所以不进一步检测，也不保留证据；警察当然不在乎破案，所以逮到强奸犯嫌疑人，也决定不对一对DNA。
2009年26岁的韩国明星张紫妍在长期、经常被逼提供性服务，不堪身心折磨后自杀。当时轰动整个韩国。张紫妍留下的五十封遗书，有大量的资料控诉演艺圈的潜规则。她遭灌兴奋剂、毒品；一天要“性招待”逾10人；还被公司逼迫去做结扎手术，方便让那些权贵“无套进入”；连父母忌日的那一天，她都被逼去陪睡4名男子，接客量比陪酒女都多很多。十年后，许多涉案人员仍然逍遥法外。是公开的啊，在韩国，明星们是用毒品，欠赌债，黑社会控制的。她们是被引诱、设陷阱进入圈套的。神圣政府司法权力也帮忙啊：一份不履行就倾家荡产的奴隶合同！
2019年韩国总统文表示：张紫妍案，还有胜利艺人夜店案（提供色情招待、迷奸、毒品、暴力伤人、行贿、偷拍并散播淫秽影片）的共同特征是发生在社会特权阶层，检方和警方等调查机关存在故意进行不实调查，甚至积极阻止查明真相，并包庇、隐瞒事实真相的情况。他下令法务部部长和行政安全部部长共同负责，部长赌上命运也要彻底调查真相。坚决查证的法务部部长曹国正上台一个月就被逼辞职。政府还是不敌财团，两个案子没有任何结果。西方民主制度下，国家的真正有权者是财团！
号称世界上最美的女人，还做了美国最有势力又有钱的肯尼迪总统和他的弟弟（美国司法部长）的二奶的玛丽莲梦露（Marilyn Monroe）也不例外。梦露在日记中写道：我跟制片人上床，大家都那样，你不做，门外就有另一个女孩等着，而且我不记得多少次蹲下去拉开他们的拉链。这是好莱坞的公开的「潜规则」。大明星同小女孩一样，都必须遵从业界的「潜规则」。好莱坞的「潜规则」通常都有一个很合法的外衣，为性交易的双方提供合法安全的保障。这是她的经历与观察。即使以梦露之美，之才干，之明星光环，之傍上最高权势还有钱的总统与司法部长，如果她想要在影视界混口饭吃，就必须自愿地提供性服务。如果被这些人强奸了，她敢站出来，指责强奸犯吗？
性侵是影视界的正常状态：即双方都相当肯定地预见可能发生的事情，双方都相当肯定地预见事情的后果。所以性侵者毫无顾忌，无法无天；受害者只能接受，如果不接受，就要找一些最动听，最美丽，最委婉的理由让性侵者伟大地原谅自己，仁慈地放过自己。所以我说专制、威权、暴政是西方民主制度社会的现实与本质。
西方民主制度下，士兵可以民主地选举三军统帅，立法与监督国家运行的议员，当士兵在军队中遭到惨无人道的、任意的强奸而士兵们毫无办法的时候；当那些许许多多的，平凡的小老百姓的也有，最耀眼的巨星也有，最勇敢的军人也有，被反复性侵、强奸后，他们真正担心的是：自己在被强奸时，有没有一不注意，得罪了一个有权势的人，自己一辈子的事业就毁了；广大老百姓可以民主选举议员为他们立法，当议员立的法与90%的人民大众的赞成与反对毫无关系，而与1%的富人绝对有关的时候；广大老百姓可以民主地选举总统，市长和各级政府的管理者，在他们所有的人都最关心的问题上：人身与财产的安全与孩子的教育，没有一个民选政府能切实有效地解决他们最大的关切，他们也没有人相信民主选举的政府会解决他们的实际问题的时候，应该是下结论的时候了：西方民主制度下所实行的“民主自由人权”是非民主的，是反民主的，是非自由的，是反自由的，是非人权的，是反人权。
这个转贴，质量很不好，请您最好看原文（看了图片，这个童星，你可能很熟悉）：链接如下:
童星被经纪人性侵6年，大明星参与其中！好莱坞太可怕了…
导演艾米·博格 （Amy J. Berg）有纪录片《大急救》(Deliver Us from Evil)揭露天主教性侵，得到2006年奥斯卡提名。2014年她制作的纪录片
2020年迪士尼偶像组合 Forever in Your Mind 成员 Ricky Garcia 将经纪人Joby Harte告上法庭：从2011年，他12岁起被性侵、强奸，几乎每周都被叫到经纪人家中参加"通宵写歌会 "，重复被灌酒、昏迷，然后被性侵、强奸，经纪人甚至把他像物品一样送给其他经纪人、制片人。这种性侵持续了 4 年时间，到他 16 岁才基本停止。很多时候，这些性侵都是公开的。好莱坞的晚宴，庆功会，其实更像是这些禽兽对男孩们的掠食大会。Ricky知道“只要一不注意，在这里得罪一个有权势的人，一辈子的事业都毁了。”，所以他象那些性侵犯愿意隐瞒事实。到2018年，他才敢说出来，并传到了他妈妈那里。家人向洛杉矶警方报警。但警方从来没有找Ricky做过详细笔录。2019年2月，地方检察官决定不予起诉，此案就此结案，理由是没有足够的证据。迪士尼人力资源部对此事是进行调查，结果是不了了之。
这个令人震惊的秘密就是：在光鲜亮丽的好莱坞背后，存在着一个恋童癖产业链。
这部纪录片的导演艾米·博格，曾经凭借揭露天主教性侵的纪录片《大急救》，得到过奥斯卡提名。
不过这一次，她却遭受了前所未有的阻碍——《公开的秘密》在整个好莱坞都找不到发行商，最后她一气之下，把片子直接放在了视频网站vimeo上，供大家免费观看。
而令人没想到的是，纪录片里发生的事，到了今天依然还在好莱坞的聚光灯之外上演…甚至牵扯到了《银河护卫队》男主“星爵”克里斯·帕拉特，以及如今在好莱坞呼风唤雨的迪士尼。
迪士尼童星控诉经纪人性侵 结果事情不了了之
2019年9月，迪士尼童星、美国男子组合Forever In Your Mind的前成员Ricky Garcia，将前经纪人Joby Harte告上了法庭。
起诉理由是，他被这位经纪人性侵，此事从他12岁的时候就开始了。Ricky在起诉书中称，Joby总会和他讨论性方面的事，还给他看小电影，然后用酒精来迷奸他。
一直到16岁那年，他差不多每星期都会被对方性侵。
除此之外，Joby还把Ricky培养成一个“性玩具”，任由他的商界朋友来回玩弄。
由于担心失去事业，Ricky一直没有跟任何人讲这件事，直到2018年3月，他终于向Joby的前助手坦白，而前助手又将此事转告给了Ricky的妈妈。
2018年12月，在家人的陪同下，Ricky终于向洛杉矶警方报案，但奇怪的是，Joby从没接受过洛杉矶警察局的讯问。
在2019年2月，坏消息传来：地方检察官决定不予起诉，声称没有足够的证据，此案就此结案。接着，Ricky的妈妈给包括迪士尼内部员工在内的几百名业内人士写了匿名信，曝光Joby Harte的恋童恶行。
随后，迪士尼人力资源部对此事进行了简短的调查，但最后也是不了了之。甚至就在上个月，Joby Harte依然代表迪士尼和华纳达成大宗交易，为旗下的未成年艺人Asher Angel谈妥了《雷霆沙赞》的续集。
Ricky的妈妈认为，迪士尼的种种举动是在包庇恋童癖。
而在Ricky提起诉讼的当天，虽然有相关媒体进行了报道，然而，对于性质如此严重的案件，却没有一家媒体选择继续追查下去。
这让Ricky的妈妈感到忍无可忍，于是她主动联系了一名记者，以长文的形式再次揭露这件事。
当事人母亲亲自接受采访：曝光迪士尼恋童癖产业链
2011年，Ricky在一次选秀中被星探发现，随后跟Joby Harte签约。
在Joby的催促下，他和他妈妈带着两万美元的贷款来到了洛杉矶。那一年，他12岁。
从第一天起，Joby就给Ricky的妈妈洗脑，让她不要插手Ricky的演艺事业，否则会损害他的职业生涯。
那时候，他爸爸刚刚失业，而且他们是借了一大笔钱来到这里，一家人都把希望寄托在Ricky的成功上。于是，妈妈听从了这位“好莱坞专业人士”的建议，从一开始就采取被动的态度。后来，她对这个选择后悔不已。
到达洛杉矶后不久，Ricky就和另外两名成员组成了男子组合Forever In Your Mind.
此后不久，他们就被Joby和几位作曲家带到了卡特琳娜岛，开始了一次通宵“写歌”之旅。除了他们仨，这次旅行中的其他人都是成年人，而且Joby还特意不允许家长参加。一到那里，他们几个就被灌了各种各样的酒：威士忌、龙舌兰、伏特加、香槟……
Ricky喝得太多，都快不省人事了。接着，Joby脱掉了Ricky的衣服，开始给他洗澡，洗着洗着Ricky就昏了过去。第二天早上，Ricky赤身裸体地醒来，和Joby一起躺在床上，完全不记得发生了什么。
在接下来的四年中，这形成了一种固定模式，每周都会上演多次包括强奸在内的各种形式的性虐待。
除了Joby本人，他的一些好朋友也参与了强奸，其中就包括全美知名经纪公司APA旗下的经纪人Tyler Grasham.
因为遭到不少类似的指控，Tyler在两年前已经被APA解雇。
据称，Ricky是直接被Joby带到Tyler家，然后被其强奸的。
2015年10月，Forever In Your Mind与迪士尼的好莱坞唱片公司签约，在迪士尼的力捧下，他们出了专辑，还参加了大大小小的颁奖典礼。
那时候，Ricky白天光鲜亮丽地出现在各种颁奖典礼和红毯上，晚上就成了被各种好莱坞大佬性侵的对象。
有一次，Ricky的弟弟跟着他参加一场晚宴，期间被某位大佬看中，尽管弟弟一直强调自己是直男，依然没有躲过大佬的魔爪，最后他不得不翻墙逃走。
像这样的晚宴在好莱坞太常见了，说是庆功晚宴，其实更像是这些禽兽对男孩们的掠食大会。
根据相关文件和目击者证词，好莱坞唱片公司高管Danielle Leonard就曾在一次晚宴上目睹，Joby Harte在众目睽睽之下，公开亲吻Ricky的嘴唇。
2016年秋天，Ricky又被Joby带到了另一个派对，而这场派对的主人，是当时还没有离婚的”星爵“克里斯·帕拉特和安娜·法瑞丝夫妇俩。
于是，在”星爵“克里斯·帕拉特的家中，Ricky再一次被灌了许多酒。当晚，好莱坞资深公关Lisa Delcampo和Joby的另一名好友，在获得Joby的同意后，把当时还未成年的Ricky带到其中一间卧室，对他实施了性侵。
如此赤裸的儿童性交易，居然在好莱坞知名影星的家中上演，实在让人不寒而栗。
虽然我们并不知道，”星爵“克里斯·帕拉特当时是否知情，但这篇报道的记者似乎在暗示，他跟此事也脱不了干系。因为文章随后指出，当年《银河护卫队》导演詹姆斯·古恩的恋童推文被曝光后，克里斯·帕拉特曾经发文力挺导演。
而这两天，许多推特网友也认为他是知情的，所以都纷纷在网上骂他：
“克里斯·帕拉特在自己家里举办了一个派对，向未成年人提供酒精，很可能意识到未成年人在派对期间遭到性侵，而且他还在詹姆斯·古恩被指控为恋童癖后，为其辩护。去他妈的克里斯·普拉特。”
“克里斯·帕拉特应该进监狱，好的，我说出来了。“
“我怎么会感到惊讶呢？……好莱坞一直在为了满足恋童癖者的需求而培养未成年人啊。“
好莱坞的聚光灯有多闪亮 灯光照不到的地方就有多肮脏
老实说，刚看到这篇新闻的时候，主页君的下巴都惊掉了。这可是迪士尼啊！
那个被我们用“所有人都在催着你长大，只有迪士尼守护着你的童心”赞美过无数遍的迪士尼啊！
谁能想到，这个为我们带来《冰雪奇缘》和一个个魔法王国的造梦机器，同时也是许多孩子的梦魇呢？
不过转念一想，当年#MeToo 运动兴起，各种各样的性侵丑闻被曝出的时候，我们就不应该在这件事上，迷信任何机构或个人了。
尤其是，在好莱坞这样一个声色犬马、灯红酒绿的地方。
其实好莱坞的恋童丑闻，早在上个世纪30年代的秀兰·邓波儿时代就存在了。
作为好莱坞历史上最成功的童星，她在7岁时就拿到了奥斯卡。她的纯真笑容，感染了全世界无数观众。
1999年，她还被美国电影学会选为“百年来最伟大的女演员”第18名。
而就在她天真烂漫的笑容背后，也隐藏着好莱坞的阴暗与丑陋。
在她成名之前出演的系列短片里，她常常饰演夜总会舞女以及妓女这样的角色：
在有的画面中，还出现了明目张胆的性暗示：
而她后来饰演的角色里，许多都是无父无母的孤儿，而且总是被单身成年男性领养，他们互动的亲密程度，让人感到不适。
而在影片《可怜的富家小姑娘》中，她甚至和自己的监护人结婚了……
就这样，她的纯真被一群好莱坞老男人利用，成为满足他们变态心理的工具。
直到成年之后，她才真正意识到，童年的自己处于一个怎样的环境中。
这么多年过去了，好莱坞不再是当年的好莱坞，但恋童的丑闻一直没有间断过，波姬·小丝、纳塔莉·波特曼等知名女星都有过类似的遭遇。
而在迪士尼，这样的事也不是第一次被曝光。
早在2014年，美国一家迪士尼乐园35人因涉嫌猥亵儿童等罪被捕：
去年，美国破获一起儿童色情制品案，两名迪士尼员工被捕：
在好莱坞这样一个充满着权力与支配的地方，聚光灯有多闪亮，灯光照不到的地方就有多肮脏。
#MeToo 运动之所以能够开展起来，和女性地位的提高有很大的关系，而那些未成年的孩子呢？他们在好莱坞的权力体系下，永远处于最底层。
他们太脆弱了。他们的纯真，应该得到守护，而不是被我们一味消费。
就在詹姆斯·古恩因恋童丑闻被迪士尼开除的时候，许多国内的粉丝还在为他忿忿不平，他们声称，一个人不应该为过去的错误言论而买单。
可是，谁来为孩子们失去的纯真而买单呢
别提美国，见钱眼开。哈哈
美国《联邦党人文集》第十篇：麦迪逊文章的评注
因为长期以来主导意识形态的西方舆论的洗脑，因为西方社会有效的决定学者职业前程兴亡的奖罚，今天许多人认识的西方社会与真实的西方社会是完全不同的。舆论描述的西方社会与现实的西方社会之间的差异之大，只要符合西方的利益，两者可以是毫不相关的，所以离开了西方的现实认识、评论西方最容易被欺骗。本文介绍一篇麦迪逊的重要文章，以便大家对他的政治思想和世界观有一个比较全面、客观的认识。麦迪逊是美国宪法之父，第四任美国总统。麦迪逊的政治思想与人类文明的理念同他的伙伴美国父们是基本一致的，更多的资料可以看文章：看看美国制宪的代表们对民主制度的憎恨。
只要花一点时间看看美利坚制宪、建国的历史，了解美国父们的政治理念，结论再明显不过了：美国父们是在理想与精神上坚定地反对民主制度，而不是只反对在实践上民主制度出现了问题。因此，就像上帝决不会选择魔鬼做天堂的总管一样，美国父们决不会缔造一个民主的政治制度，更不会建立一个公平正义的社会；就像造物主坚信只要基因不变，猫与老鼠关系不会被改变一样，美国父们坚信只要他们的宪法不被推翻，美国就是极少数富人（包括精英）的国家。他们是这个国家的真正主人和保护者。极少数富人的经济利益（即实质上的贪污腐败性质的好处，但被美国的政治体系合法化，合理化）直接与美国的政治制度挂钩，也就决定了他们象保护自己的生命与财产一样保护美国的政治制度。美国的政治制度是以反民主为核心的，为保护少数富人权利而修正的共和制。
一些不了解西方的人们今天达到了刘姥姥境界：进入大观园后，看到大房子就当作神庙来跪拜。只要是西方的，就是神圣的。当他们看到美国父们说“不自由宁死”，“人生而平等”，就相信美国人，不管是白人黑人、穷人富人，从来都是自由的，平等的。当他们看到美国父们说“保护少数富人的权利”，就相信美国的多数不富裕的人同样是被保护的。只要对美国的历史与现实有一个基本的了解，就会发现这同看了b子立的牌坊，就相信上面雕刻的每一个字一样的谎缪。更多的资料可以看：美国的政治制度是以反民主为核心理念的非人民的共和制；比尔德著作《美国宪法的经济观》；《联邦党人文集》。
Federalist No 10
The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
Friday, November 23, 1787；Author: James Madison
To the People of the State of New York:
AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. 【本文主旨：建立合众国最重要的是防止利益集团或政党之害】。The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
【1：美国父们与中国的贤哲们对朋党的判断、评价是一致的。这是他们基于对人的固有本性的认识、阅历而推断的结论，是美国政治理论与实践的最根本的基础。今天世界上许多民主制度的国家既没有能够，也不敢承认这一点。
2：从人的天性与政党的特性出发，从事实出发，美国父们最坚定的信仰就是根深蒂固的，毫无任何妥协余地的反对“实质的，真正的”民主制度（全文到处可见）。反民主制度是美国父们在政治制度设计中的核心指导思想。
3：在美国父们心中，公平正义是，也仅仅是少数富裕的人们的权利不被侵犯。如果只是从表面看，他们对多数的、不富裕的人们的权利没有关心。如果看到他们人生的经验，和制宪建国时他们正在从侵犯大多数人的利益中获得巨大的经济好处，他们是将少数富人侵犯多数的不富裕人的权利视为理所当然的“自然的公平正义”。从他们一边倒的、反复地强调的，一定要保护的富裕人的不平等的权利言行不难体会到。
4：孟子说：待文王而兴者，庶民也；豪杰之士，不待文王也兴。相对于少数富人来说，多数不富裕人的权利更需要保护，但美国父们有意识的忽视了这一点。在美国制宪建国过程中，既没有当时占有投票权的公民的绝大多数的不富裕的人（小农，手工艺者，富裕工人）的代表参加，也没有参加的人代表他们的利益。然而美国父们清楚地知道，几千年来西方贤哲们的警告与历史事实是：人民大众的政府从来是以合法的形式，渐进地，累积地侵犯多数的不富裕人们的权利；少数富裕的人的权利从来是被多数人以暴力形式侵犯。】
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. 【利益集团，朋党组织。】
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.【民主之害，一治本，二管控】
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.【具体化的平等】
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.【自由是更高原则。显而易见，自由更加是保护少数富人的权利（特别是不平等的经济、政治、文化、司法特权）必不可缺的条件。】
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties. 【本质的反民主，而且反任何理论与实践上的平等，而结党营私的朋党组织是自然的，合理的。也是反卢梭而用之。】
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. 【少数富裕人阶级之内的不同阶层。美国政治的现实是只有他们才能进入博弈场，参加利益爭斗。这一点，美国父们是心知肚明的。】
【1：美国父们认为：最根本的权利是以财富为标志的经济权利，人类争斗的最终本质是经济利益的争斗。这个争斗（极少数富裕人们与多数不富裕人）是人类社会最根本的，最暴力的，也是不可能调和的。悲剧的是他们建立一个极少数富人可以合法的，以不平等、不公平正义的方式获得经济利益的政治制度。
2：政府的第一原则是反平等。美国父们是根本的、原则的反民主，但他们政治思想的精髓是反平等。任何形式的排除以财富为标志的（对经济、政治、文化、司法的）不平等影响在理论上，在实践是都是不能接受的。
3：如果第一原则是反平等，就必然反公平正义，那么整个社会的伦理道德就不可能是光明、进步的。由政治的伦理道德所决定的政治制度的本质也就是黑暗的；最终还是由社会现实决定的社会文化与文明的本质也是黑暗、反动、非人性的。这个结论虽然很激进，但成立，也同美国社会现实的观察是一致的。有关分析可以看：1，民主自由人权在近不在远，2，为什么西方没有中国式的王朝兴亡循环？
4：基于以上的事实，就不难理解，兰德（1905-1982）成为美国正统的意识形态中神一样的人物。她的书在美国的影响仅次于《圣经》，是美国精英、权贵、上层极力吹捧的对象。名人如格林斯潘，乔布斯，蒂尔，和许多总统、政治家都拜她为偶像。她宣扬自我实践是“绝对道德”。因此自私自利是绝对的道德。一切正善（如公平正义，平等，支持、照顾、同情、爱护其他人）都是不道德的，对弱者、不幸者的关怀也是错误的。
5：事实也是如此。两百多年来，美国的政治制度非常有效地按照美国父们设计的那样，在国内外全方位地反平等，反公平正义。在制宪建国时刻，就没有能保护占有投票权的美国公民的绝大多数人的权利。没有投票权的是当时美国人的绝大多数，他们根本没有被美国父们当作人，也就更谈不上什么权利了。“极端”如麦迪逊都评论说：制宪之争就是南北双方的经济利益之争。那一群持有政府公债的人，就是最积极推动成立联邦政府的人，最厚脸无耻为自己获取利益的人。长期以来，对于90%的美国人民而言，他们的意见（赞成也好，反对也好）对国会立法的影响是微不足道的，是零。而精英阶层（大概1%吧），他们强烈反对的法案，绝对不可能在国会通过，也就是说他们绝对有能力封杀任何他们不喜欢的法案。同时国会法案的通过率与他们支持率有清楚、明显的一致性。】
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.【人之天性到政党之天性。公平正义是指导原则，但仅仅是就保护少数富裕的人的权利而言。公平正义很明显是被否定的，如果涉及多数不富裕人的权利。因为谈论富人阶级的不同阶层当时所面临的重大问题，影响力更大。】
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
【结论是人治不可靠。因为没有超越世俗权力的力量，追根求源，美国父们理想的、建立的制度还是人治，是为了极少数富裕人阶级的利益而精心改善的共和制度下的人治。这一点，可以看文章：为什么西方没有中国式的王朝兴亡循环？。看具体事例就更清楚了。如果美国的一切问题最后都是一个法律问题，那么法官是最终裁决者。法律是神圣的，但一切法理都是议员制定的，也总是可以请游说团体购买（美国父们反对平等，也自然反禁止捐款、游说团体）。法官在实践上比法律更神圣的。美国到最高法院的一切问题都可以是，也都是由法官的立场决定的。精明的美国父们当然清楚明白：以法律形式的文斗不但能够保护极少数富裕人的权利，而且必然导致极少数富裕人阶级全面的侵犯绝大多数不富裕人阶级的权利。美国两百多年来的司法事实是美国的立法从来同90%的美国人民毫无关系。】
The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.【结论。以后就是如何做到这一点的术了。】
If a faction consists of less than a majority（两种不同的多数：整体公民中的多数，与决策委员会中的多数）, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind. 【美国政治制度具体的、技术的设计总原则。有意识地掩盖了人类社会的历史事实，最终还是少数富裕人的利益。参考孟子、卢梭论。】
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.【可以参考马基雅维利有关罗马共和国的讨论，麦迪逊的讨论至少是片面的不正确。】
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations: 【修改民意是必要的】
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage. 【与民主制度下的政治现实几乎完全相反！】
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
【一个大合众国比一个个独立的州好。
不是代表人民，而是由民选的超越人民的决策者。修改民意（违背大多数人民的要求）是正确且必要的。
如其说是道理，不如说是态度。辩论而言，自相矛盾处很多。
一个替代：少数富裕人阶级的利益=国家利益。】
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.【一个坚决、有效地反民主制度的，有效地修正的能保护少数富人权利的共和制的合众国。】
质问台上一个著名政客，先是主持人企图用不断说话的方式打断，不起作用，又上来一个手持话筒，和主持人同时对发言者进行骚扰。然后，武装警察介入，随即主持人大声宣称带出会场，并不许回到会场。 不解的是，既然是Q&A，提问题很正常，大概只是主持人和演讲嘉宾不喜欢的问题，所以就剥夺了这个年轻人的发言权？ 亲眼目睹和看电视节目，感觉很不一样，思考深度和角度也不一样。美式民主和言论自由令人费解。
2009年26岁的韩国明星张紫妍在长期、经常被逼提供性服务，不堪身心折磨后自杀。当时轰动整个韩国。张紫妍留下的五十封遗书，有大量的资料控诉演艺圈的潜规则。她遭灌兴奋剂、毒品；一天要“性招待”逾10人；还被公司逼迫去做结扎手术，方便让那些权贵“无套进入”；连父母忌日的那一天，她都被逼去陪睡4名男子，接客量比陪酒女都多很多。十年后，许多涉案人员仍然逍遥法外。是公开的啊，在韩国，明星们是用毒品，欠赌债，黑社会控制的。她们是被引诱、设陷阱进入圈套的。神圣政府司法权力也帮忙啊：一份不履行就倾家荡产的奴隶合同！
2019年韩国总统文表示：张紫妍案，还有胜利艺人夜店案（提供色情招待、迷奸、毒品、暴力伤人、行贿、偷拍并散播淫秽影片）的共同特征是发生在社会特权阶层，检方和警方等调查机关存在故意进行不实调查，甚至积极阻止查明真相，并包庇、隐瞒事实真相的情况。他下令法务部部长和行政安全部部长共同负责，部长赌上命运也要彻底调查真相。坚决查证的法务部部长曹国正上台一个月就被逼辞职。政府还是不敌财团，两个案子没有任何结果。西方民主制度下，国家的真正有权者是财团！
号称世界上最美的女人，还做了美国最有势力又有钱的肯尼迪总统和他的弟弟（美国司法部长）的二奶的玛丽莲梦露（Marilyn Monroe）也不例外。梦露在日记中写道：我跟制片人上床，大家都那样，你不做，门外就有另一个女孩等着，而且我不记得多少次蹲下去拉开他们的拉链。这是好莱坞的公开的「潜规则」。大明星同小女孩一样，都必须遵从业界的「潜规则」。好莱坞的「潜规则」通常都有一个很合法的外衣，为性交易的双方提供合法安全的保障。这是她的经历与观察。即使以梦露之美，之才干，之明星光环，之傍上最高权势还有钱的总统与司法部长，如果她想要在影视界混口饭吃，就必须自愿地提供性服务。如果被这些人强奸了，她敢站出来，指责强奸犯吗？
性侵是影视界的正常状态：即双方都相当肯定地预见可能发生的事情，双方都相当肯定地预见事情的后果。所以性侵者毫无顾忌，无法无天；受害者只能接受，如果不接受，就要找一些最动听，最美丽，最委婉的理由让性侵者伟大地原谅自己，仁慈地放过自己。所以我说专制、威权、暴政是西方民主制度社会的现实与本质。
封城反人类，有选票的国家都不可能。所以，中国就是大号朝鲜，没区别。
西方民主制度下，士兵可以民主地选举三军统帅，立法与监督国家运行的议员，当士兵在军队中遭到惨无人道的、任意的强奸而士兵们毫无办法的时候；当那些许许多多的，平凡的小老百姓的也有，最耀眼的巨星也有，最勇敢的军人也有，被反复性侵、强奸后，他们真正担心的是：自己在被强奸时，有没有一不注意，得罪了一个有权势的人，自己一辈子的事业就毁了；广大老百姓可以民主选举议员为他们立法，当议员立的法与90%的人民大众的赞成与反对毫无关系，而与1%的富人绝对有关的时候；广大老百姓可以民主地选举总统，市长和各级政府的管理者，在他们所有的人都最关心的问题上：人身与财产的安全与孩子的教育，没有一个民选政府能切实有效地解决他们最大的关切，他们也没有人相信民主选举的政府会解决他们的实际问题的时候，应该是下结论的时候了：西方民主制度下所实行的“民主自由人权”是非民主的，是反民主的，是非自由的，是反自由的，是非人权的，是反人权。
在西方民主制度下，小士兵可以选三军最高统帅，立法与监督国家运行的议员，是民主,是了不起。但那些与他生活真正有关系的班长、排长、连长、营长、团长，和管理他行为的规章制度、纪律，他连屁都不能发一个。他的实际生活又有多少民主？
在了不起的可以选最高统帅的西方民主制度下，西方士兵的真实生活却悲剧了。看看西方军队里的性侵，摘录2016年澳洲皇家委员会的性侵调查报告中的几个事例：（1）一位化名为CJU的前军人控诉。1978年参军,他才15岁。一天晚上，一位老兵将他的衣服扒光，在他的腹股沟和生殖器抹上蔬菜酱，再让一只狗一点点地把酱舔掉。“我怕那只狗咬掉我的生殖器。”CJU痛苦地回忆着。等狗添完酱，那个老兵迫他与那只狗性交。“他们说，‘这是在这里做爱的唯一办法，你对于我们而言就是一条狗。要是你敢告诉别人，下次我们会杀了你。’”在反反复复的折磨下，终于在一次遭受虐待、殴打以致手臂骨折时，CJU把事情报告给了军校工作人员。“我告诉学校里的那些官员，这些事情一直在发生着。”可那些官员并没有给他任何回应。（2）另一位化名为CJA在1967年加入前皇家海军。他说自己经常在半夜被人揪起来，拉到运动场上，与其他新兵“互相强奸”。老兵给他建议：“忍忍吧孩子，我以前也这样，但这可以让你成为一个真正的男人。”CJA试图上报，可当亲眼目睹一名老兵将精液射到了另一名士兵的食物里后，他就再也不敢抱怨了。（3）肯·麦克韦恩第一次，第二次，第三次被强奸后，试图从医护人员那里寻求帮助，但遭到拒绝。医护人员告诉他，肚子和臀部的疼痛只是来自他的“焦虑”。他的臀部上今天还留有严重的伤痕。最后一次被强奸后，走投无路麦克韦恩选择了自杀：72片安眠药。没有死亡，被海军部以健康原因除名。在他自杀未遂送进医院抢救时，他告诉来看望的父母，究竟发生了什么事。他的父亲却一边打他一边骂他是个骗子。从那天起，肯决定将此事永远埋在心里，这一埋就是40多年。（4）2014年澳洲国防部应对虐待专案小组(简称DART)称，有超过1100名涉嫌犯下性侵和虐待罪的嫌犯被指仍在服役，有些还身居高位，但他们可能不会受到惩处。
如果你想作一个调查，你能发现成千上万的案例。可以清楚地看到结论：在西方民主制度下，这些恶劣的性侵事件，是完全可以变成正常的生产劳动过程的一部分。也就是说：西方民主制度为这种恶劣的性侵事件的正常产生、正常发展、圆满结果提供了全面的、足够的条件。在一切以数人头为最终依据的西方民主社会，结党营私就是势力，就是正义。在西方真正的、危害最大的犯罪常常以结党营私的方式合法存在。这种结党营私集团在一次次的循环中巩固、壮大，成为执行社会潜规则的，隐蔽的建制（Establishment）。
以加拿大、美国军警为例。（1）2016年加拿大2万女骑警察符合政府性侵赔偿条件，拿到总金额达1亿元的赔偿。（2）2017年加拿大对公共服务雇员进行的年度调查中，40%的狱警表示，他们在过去两年里一直是性骚扰的受害者，其中60%的人表示是同事的骚扰。（3）加拿大女狱警Tracy Mercier怒揭监狱黑幕：在这里性侵根本没人管。2016年，一名男性狱警用一种长圆金属工具插进了她屁股的缝隙之间，尽管有视频作为证据。在她投诉62天之后，监狱才决定调查她的投诉。她却被逼休病假，没有一分钱的薪水。狱警如此，监狱的犯人就可想而知了。监狱里面的性侵是公开的秘密。美国有一起案例，一名性侵幼童犯，自从关进监狱后肛门就从没有愈合过，就连自杀都不能自己决定。（4）美国国防部的官员表示，近4成的女兵被性侵，很多人不敢声张，只能忍气吞声。很多女兵表示，真实数字要远比这个多。真实数字有多高？美军每年至少有3万女兵被体检出来怀孕。美军每年通报的性侵案例至少有3000多起，被处理的却不到十分之一，很多都是不了了之。（5）回忆录《爱你胜过爱枪》的开篇是：对美国的女兵而言，性（性侵与强奸）是一个重要的经历，但没有人愿意承认这一事实。那些上战场的女兵，虽然非常害怕敌人的炮火，但更害怕男性战友的性侵（强奸）。为了防身，女兵们晚上睡觉的时，都会锁紧房门，常在枕头下或怀里放一把军刀。为了避免夜间外出上厕所，有时候宁可口渴也不愿喝一口水，因为她们知道出处后有可能发生什么，但不知道会有多严重。可以说所有的女兵都知道美军中强奸有多严重，所有的美军都知道部队里强奸有多严重，全世界都知道美军中强奸有多严重，就是美军管理者不知道，因为没有看到他们做了什么事有效地阻止军队中强奸。
加拿大、美国国家的法律，政府的章程、规矩都明文规定保护工作人员的人权，对性侵零容忍。政府的工作人员，许多公司的员工都接受反骚扰、性侵的培训。但是国家的警察Tracy Mercier受到的性侵，还有视频证据，而且成为世界性的公开事件，却得到如此下场。西方的宪法，法律，政府的规定，民主自由人权的大旗，舆论自由、监督，有一点用吗？当一个国家的不怕死而且拿着枪的军警战士被强奸都成为正常状态的时候，这个国家的“民主选举，言论自由，人生而平，天赋人权”等所有的口号，制度、法律、规章准则，与老百姓的真实生活有什么关系。在西方民主制度下，西方人民可以选举总统、议员、言论自由，这同广大人民群众的生活有关系吗，能给要挣钱糊口的广大人民提供一点点民主、自由、人权的保障吗？详细资料可以看文章：西方民主国家以结党营私为办法的制度性的贪污腐败。
崔哥这么奋不顾身滴待在危险四伏的美国，不肯去武汉享受方舱的幸福生活，三胖看了的结论肯定是，枪毙！