{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"c3e269f2-c36d-4862-98ef-fa37a2f8b009","title":"正义论","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"7500402449","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"c3e269f2-c36d-4862-98ef-fa37a2f8b009","id":"c3e269f2-c36d-4862-98ef-fa37a2f8b009","uuid":"c3e269f2-c36d-4862-98ef-fa37a2f8b009","title":"正义论","normalized_title":"正义论","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"7500402449","isbns":["7500402449"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":624,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/c3e269f2-c36d-4862-98ef-fa37a2f8b009","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/%E6%AD%A3%E4%B9%89%E8%AE%BA","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/c3e269f2-c36d-4862-98ef-fa37a2f8b009/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/c3e269f2-c36d-4862-98ef-fa37a2f8b009/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/c3e269f2-c36d-4862-98ef-fa37a2f8b009","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/c3e269f2-c36d-4862-98ef-fa37a2f8b009/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/c3e269f2-c36d-4862-98ef-fa37a2f8b009/search"},"page":{"printed_page":81,"pdf_page":93,"physical_index":93,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"8986f3ad1d03999d03dbb5f7ea07973760ac2160becead83a833e8e6538c2ce6"},"chapter":"第二章","content":"不完善的程序正义可举刑事审判为例。期望的结果是：只要被告犯有被控告的罪行，他就应当被宣判为有罪。审判程序是为探求和确定这方面的真实情况设计的，但看来不可能把法规设计得使它们总是达到正确的结果。审判的理论考察哪一些程序和证据规则预期能最好地达到与法的其它目的相一致的这一目的。我们也许可以合理地预期：一些不同的听证安排能在一些不同的情况里（虽不是一贯如此，但至少在大部分时间里），产生正确的结果。那么，一种审判就是不完善的程序正义的一例。即便法律被仔细地遵循，过程被公正恰当地引导，还是有可能达到错误的结果。一个无罪的人可能被判作有罪，一个有罪的人却可能逍遥法外。在这类案件中我们看到了这样一种误判：不正义并非来自人的过错，而是因为某些情况的偶然结合挫败了法律规范的目的。\n\n81","previous_page":80,"next_page":82}