英和翻訳 enforce government

質問

正しい日本語に書き直すことをお願いします

Can judges enforce government (police, prosecutors) personal desire rather than enacted laws, without violating the defendant's right to have the laws upheld?
裁判官は、被告の法律擁護権を侵害することなく、法律より、政府（警察官、検察官）の個人的欲求を執行することができるか？

right to have the laws upheld = 法律擁護権

回答No.3

Nakay702 · ベストアンサー

「お礼コメント」を拝見しました。

＞"Can judges enforce government (police, prosecutors) personal desire, without violating the defendant's right to have the laws upheld?"
＞裁判官は、被告の法律擁護権を侵害することなく、公務員（警察官、検察官）の個人的欲求を「執行」することができるか。

⇒It's great!
いろいろ苦しみましたが、これが最高だと思います。

お礼

Great to hear - thanks!!

I'm off to the gym. I need to get some exercise..

thanks again :o)

回答No.4

92128bwsd

I'm really intimidated to deepen the discussion only with my high school level knowledge while you are the expert, but let me just put my opinion here.

Do you mean by "enforce" that judges forcibly make decision? If so, I understand why you need to use "enforce". But still it shouldn't be translated to "執行する", because courts and judges don't have authority to "執行する" to somebody or something. Judges have authority to rule or order, but they are not "執行する” in Japanese. "執行する" every time have nuances of "execute", "practice", or "perform". If my above understanding is correct, and with some correction, then the original sentence will be:
「裁判官は、被告の法律擁護権を侵害すること無く、成文化された法律によらず、政府（警察、検察）の意図(要求)により強制的に判決（命令）を下すことができるか？」

How about this?

お礼

Thanks for the reply and don't discredit your academic ability. School does not dictate one's academic ability. And from where I sit you are highly academic.

It's too bad enforce doesn't seem to have the same meaning as it does in English.

"Judges enforce laws" - this is of course incorrect but often spoken. It's incorrect because that's not the function of a judge. At the same time, it's very easy for judges to enforce laws and it's been a debate of sorts whether judges should.

Let's say a man is caught shoplifting, and the maximum penalty under the law is 2 years in jail. Okay what if the prosecutor wants 4 years because that was what the old law was.

In the above example if the judge ruled 4 years was the penalty, we could be sarcastic and say, "the judge enforced the prosecutor's personal desire" rather than upholding the law.

I would love to hear your thoughts because I even have two titles I use with the same expression:

No.12 Enforcing Personal Desire
Defendants Enforce Personal Desire

Note that although the above are titles the meaning is within the paragraphs that explain the details.

回答No.2

Nakay702

＞Can judges enforce government (police, prosecutors) personal desire rather than enacted laws, without violating the defendant's right to have the laws upheld?
＞裁判官は、被告の法律擁護権を侵害することなく、法律より、政府（警察官、検察官）の個人的欲求を執行することができるか？
⇒このままでよいと思いますが、私の個人的願望としては、
裁判官は、被告の法律擁護権を侵害することなく、法律（成文法）を執行するように政府（警察官、検察官）の個人的欲求を「執行」することができるか？
という風に、「説明的語句や記号」を補って、「分かりやすさと正確性」を期したいところです。（もちろん、ご判断にお任せします）。

お礼

Thanks as always.

I think this 'legal question' is confusing in Japanese so it should be shortened. Do you think this would be better:

"Can judges enforce government (police, prosecutors) personal desire, without violating the defendant's right to have the laws upheld?"

I took out the "rather than enacted laws" part. So it would be:

裁判官は、被告の法律擁護権を侵害することなく、公務員（警察官、検察官）の個人的欲求を「執行」することができるか。

I think if it's changed like that your かぎ括弧 idea would work. What do you think?

回答No.1

92128bwsd

>裁判官は、被告の法律擁護権を侵害することなく、法律より、政府（警察官、検察官）の個人的欲求を執行することができるか？

文法的に直すところはありません。難しい文章なので自然な日本語と言うのも無いと思いますが、私なりに書いてみたのが下記。
「裁判官は被告の所有する法律擁護権を侵害すること無く、既存の法律よりも政府職員(警察官、検察官）属人的な要求により判断を行うことができるのか？」

”enforce” is usually translated to ”執行する” in Japanese. But ”執行” is tightly associated with the police like "law enforcement" while courts and judges have to be independent from the enforcement and are responsible for judgement under the laws. So I interpreted "enforce" into "判断する".
For "personal desire", I found "個人的要求” in a dictionary, but it's not a popular word with a nuance of demanding something to make one's private benefit.
"属人的” here says of being depended on someone's subjective view limited by his experience, knowledge or position in an organization.

お礼

I love your reply... it really made me think, that the question should be shortened so there is no confusion.

Here's what it should have said:

"Can judges enforce government (police, prosecutors) personal desire, without violating the defendant's right to have the laws upheld?"

You'll notice that I removed "rather than enacted laws". I don't believe this part is incorrect because the last part talks about upholding the laws however "enacted laws" isn't needed to make the point.

How's this:

裁判官は被告の所有する法律擁護権を侵害すること無く、公務員(警察官、検察官）属人的な要求を執行することができるのか？

I would think 執行 should be used, or a similar word.. what is your opinion?

To say "rule in favour of personal desire" doesn't have the same meaning as "enforce personal desire".

I should mention. Personal Desire = Old Laws... in this case.

Police want to maintain old laws and judges are upholding those laws. But because the laws don't exist - they are technically enforcing the personal desire (old laws) by ignoring what's going on.

I'm looking forward to your reply.