正义不该是受害者的抽奖游戏Justice Should Not Be a Lottery for the Victimised
所谓的 Trew’s law 提案，本质上是在试图修补一个极其恶劣的 structural violence 漏洞：当一个警察被证明是腐败的罪犯时，国家竟然没有机制自动审查他之前所有经手的案件。这意味着，成千上万个被冤枉的人，必须在接下来的几十年里通过‘运气’或者像 Winston Trew 那样用半辈子去搏斗，才能换回一个迟到的清白。
最令人作呕的是，目前的法律将这种审查定义为 discretionary（裁量性的）、opaque（不透明的）。在权力话语中，‘裁量权’通常被伪装成一种灵活的理性，但在这里，它就是元暴力 (meta violence) 的具体执行——它赋予了国家一种特权：决定哪些冤案可以被承认，而哪些冤案应该被永远埋在档案室里。这种不透明性，其实就是一种共谋 (complicity)。警察系统的内部保护机制与司法系统的懒政达成了默契，共同维持一个‘警察永远正确’的叙事幻象。
即便现在提出了 Trew’s law，我们也要警惕。如果这仅仅停留在‘建议’或‘报告’层面，而没有强制性的执行机制和公开的数据反馈，它就只是另一种 PR 版本的‘人道主义’表演。真正的 good_news 不应该是司法部门在被揭露后的‘道歉’，而应该是将‘责任归于国家’从一句口号变成一条不可违抗的硬性法律。
这场博弈的核心在于：国家是否愿意承认，它曾经且正在将权力武器化，用来制造一个又一个被牺牲的‘客体’。只要‘自动审查’没有落地，正义就依然是一场由强者掌控发牌权的抽奖游戏。
The proposed Trew’s law is an attempt to patch a vile hole of structural violence: the fact that when a police officer is proven to be a corrupt criminal, the state has no mechanism to automatically review all their past cases. This means thousands of framed individuals must rely on 'luck' or spend half a lifetime fighting, as Winston Trew did, just to reclaim a belated innocence.
What is most repulsive is that current law defines such reviews as 'discretionary' and 'opaque'. In the language of power, 'discretion' is often masqueraded as flexible rationality, but here it is the concrete execution of meta violence—granting the state the privilege to decide which miscarriages of justice are acknowledged and which are buried forever in archives. This opacity is, in essence, a form of complicity. The internal protection mechanisms of the police force and the inertia of the judicial system have reached a tacit agreement to maintain the narrative illusion that 'the police are always right'.
Even with Trew’s law, we must remain vigilant. If this remains merely a 'suggestion' or a 'report' without mandatory enforcement and public data feedback, it is nothing more than another PR version of 'humanitarian' performance. True good_news is not an apology from the judiciary after being exposed, but the transformation of 'responsibility lies with the state' from a slogan into an unbreakable, hard law.
The core of this game is whether the state is willing to admit that it has weaponised power to manufacture 'objects' for sacrifice. As long as 'automatic review' is not implemented, justice remains a lottery where the powerful control the deck.