Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Практический английский язык для юристов = Practical English for Law Students. В 2 частях. Ч. 2. Учебное пособие
.pdf
251
Kate, New Zealand.
No, I don't believe in the death penalty. I don't believe in killing. In
fact, I think if someone deserves the death penalty, actually instead of getting a death penalty they should serve time in jail and have to face society
and fell the humility. If they don't, if they serve the death penalty, they will
not feel the shame and will not realize the consequences.
Nitya, India.
I believe in the death penalty because I think rape and terrorism are
some crimes which are totally so disgusting towards the human race and
that's, I don't think it encouraged by anyone in the whole world, and everyone wants peace so I think, yeah there are some reasons why the death
penalty should be there.
Joel, America.
The death penalty? That's a tough one because I think the death penalty is a good deterrent. It would definitely stop me from doing certain
crimes if I knew that I was going to be killed if I did them, but the problem
with it is, is that you can never be sure if the person actually did it, so if we
convict someone and then kill him and later find out that the person actually didn't do the crime, then I think that's a tragedy.
Steve, England.
I'm against the death penalty, for, well, the main reason I'm against it,
is that there’s always an element of doubt. You never know if someone really did murder someone, or. well, murder is usually the main reason for
the death penalty, so there's always an element of doubt. You can never be
quite sure, so I think there's always a risk, and you shouldn't kill someone.
Marion, Ireland.
I think that’s a really difficult question if the death penalty should be
in place. Most of the time, I think that I'm against the death penalty, but then,
you know, you read stories in the newspaper, especially about children being killed, particularly cruel ways of ending people's lives, and then sometimes, I get so angry that I think, yeah, just kill that person because they deserve it, but really, when I calm down, I don’t believe in the death penalty.
252
APPENDIX 2
TEXTS FOR SUPPLEMENTARY READING,
TRANSLATING, AND RENDERING
Module 1
1. Read and translate the following text into Russian.
Jordan Brown Court Case:
The American Judicial System Essay
Introduction. Jordan Brown is a young man from New Beaver, Pennsylvania, who was accused of killing his father’s fiancée when he was 11.
After being charged with murder in 2009, he spent eight years in a juvenile
prison and went through many trials and appeals. He did not admit his involvement in the crime and was eventually acquitted by the court in 2018
due to a lack of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Despite his acquittal,
Brown has repeatedly admitted in interviews that his passage through the
court and prison systems led to his PTSD. At the moment, Brown is trying
to catch up, going to college, and hoping to turn his life around. Jordan
Brown’s case became an example of cruelty and propensity to punish in
the American judicial system.
Family History. Jordan’s family and personal history prior to the as-
sassination are not dramatic or traumatic. Jordan had a strong and loving
relationship with his father, Chris Brown. They spent a lot of time together, and Chris spent much time with his son. Jordan’s mother, Mildred
Krause, abandoned him as a child due to some medical condition that the
Brown and Krause family members do not disclose. Somewhat known, Jordan’s environment was supportive — he had a stable home life in a good
neighborhood with low crime rates. No facts from childhood and family
history allow us to point to possible motives for such a severe crime as
murder.
Court Case. On February 20, 2009, in New Beaver, Pennsylvania,
a pregnant Kenzie Marie Houk, the 26-year-old fiancée of Chris Brown,
253
father of Jordan Brown, was murdered in her bed. Jordan was accused of
killing Marie Houk by shooting her in the back of the head while she was
sleeping. The police suggested that Giorjan snuck into his father’s room,
took his rifle, and shot his future stepmother in front of the school. The
District Attorney’s Office initially requested that 11-year-old Jordan be
tried as an adult and sentenced to life in prison. After three years in pretrial detention, Pennsylvania courts have decided to treat Jordan Brown’s
case as a juvenile case. Brown was due to serve his sentence in a secure
juvenile facility until age 21, but after multiple appeals, the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court overturned his conviction. Evidence of Jordan Brown’s
guilt was insufficient, the investigation was conducted negligently, and the
shotgun was not confirmed as the murder weapon.
Mental Illness. There is no reason to believe that Jordan Brown had
a mental illness before his arrest. All evidence points to the fact that this
was an ordinary boy from a reasonably good family. Subsequently, Brown
repeatedly said in interviews that he developed PTSD due to the problematic experience (Deutsch, 2018). At the same time, Brown does not disclose any details of the manifestation of the disease and claims that he
does not hold a grudge against anyone (Deutsch, 2018). Thus, there is insufficient evidence to paint a picture of his mental health.
Conclusion. The case of Jordan Brown is a complex and revealing
example of the problems in the American police and judicial systems. The
victim of the incident was not only the murdered Kenzie Marie Houk and
her child. The story left a deep imprint on many people’s lives, including
Jordan Brown himself, his father, and all his family members. Jordan not
only went through a traumatic prison experience and lost more than eight
years of his life but also suffered severe social harassment because his case
was heard loudly and publicly.
2. Read the following text and render it in Russian.
The Court of Law: Merits and Difficulties
The court of law is one of the pillars of the democratic system. It is
that important part of the system from which people expect to deliver jus-
254
tice. This is why it is very important that the judges and other court members deliver the most justice they can. In order for them to deliver more justice they can, they should perform the best they can. And, in order to perform the best they can, they should be put inadequate conditions to do this.
This is why the managing system mentioned in the example is all
about. Its purpose is to create the adequate and best conditions for the judges to perform the maximum and best they can. The system’s strong pillars
are its division between the civil and penal cases and the rotation formula
which allows the judges to take part in all the different forms of the cases
to be judged. On a master level, this calendar rotates every month two judges from civil cases to penal ones and vice versa. This “refreshment” of the
judges allows them to put away the stress and tension accumulated during
the month by taking the next month a case of a completely different format. This also makes the court as a whole become more “objective” and
impartial in its decision-making process.
This way all the judges take part in the judging procedure for penal
cases or civil ones. If there were only two judges appointed for the penal
cases, for example, this may have influenced the public perception of nonimpartiality. Thus, it is important for a manager of an organization to be
careful about the image created in public and to carefully manage the tension and stress put on his/her employees.
But there are some difficulties and considerations to be made upon
this management system also. It is true that by rotating the judges from penal to civil cases every month you decrease their stress on the individual
level and assure more participation and impartiality as a court on a master
level, but this way you also increase the pressure on the individual judges.
This happens because they have to finish the case within the month, or the
new judges have to take some time to be informed on the cases and then
begin procedures. And, by adding that nowadays the court statistics show
that a criminal case takes an averagely of two to three months to finish,
this rotation module, in the end, damages the judging process itself. It is
the second of the third judge that is going to deliver the decision upon the
case. In a certain way, this makes the work of the previous one (or even two)
useless.
255
This situation increases the possibility that the judges do not pay the
necessary attention to the cases since they know from the beginning they
are not going to be the ones to finish this case. On the individual level this
may reduce their responsibility awareness because of the very fact we mentioned above. And, this would definitely impact negatively on their performance and the performance of the court as a whole.
3. Read the texts and discuss the topics in the group.
1. Role and Functions of Experts in Adversarial Legal System
Experts have their own battle and concept of ideas in the arena of
court proceedings. All of them have with familiarity, knowledge, understanding and skills to provide a great attack in the court proceedings. Experts are appointed in to two different parties and choose the best point-ofviews in the issue. The jurors permit to call the opposing parties their own
experts and in practice, the actions or the degree of expertise is highly required with the technical or scientific training. The other experts are free to
comment on the other party’s report, but the ultimate control over the procedure retains in the tribunal.
The person involved in the court process and their opinion must be
entirely of partially based on their scope of knowledge. Experts’ one function is to distinguish the opinions form the fact on which the evidences are
based. The report of an expert must establish a solid reasoning of information
in which it will be judges as accepted or rejected. Solely, the role of an expert is based on her or his own knowledge and not from the opinion of
others.
2. Opinion On the Issue.
With despite to the issues of adversarial bias, the proposal for its elimination is welcome since it doesn’t play any useful role in expert investigations. But in truth, the system cannot eliminate all the existing bias because
the opposing bias pertinent to the experts who is an allied in to either party
may be affected their own theory of bias. On the other hand, experts of the
opposing parties are provided their equal rights to cross examine and criti-
256
cize the admissibility of the evidences presented in court proceeding. For
some expert opinions, the use of bias is an added motivational factor that
helps establish advantage against the opposing party. The ground of adversarial system is the subject in the danger of bias. Experts prepared their best
position in the case, thus leading them to do further bias during the process. The particular evidences where presented and with the court proceedings, are subject to the cross examination. The relevant information might
be distorted and this might alter the decision of the jurors. The advantage
of the arbitration in International disputes has been stated and pointed out
that it offers hope of reducing the biases and the prospect of parallel lawsuits in different countries.
Adversarial system promotes consensus judgment but is also plagued
with many challenges. Expert has its worse quality in inquisitorial systems
because it is infrequently challenged by the defense. Notably, the other system, such as the French system, might work better if the lawyer on the side
of defense questions the expert evidence more vigorously, but it is indeed
difficult to change one element of the system in other way. The inquisitional
set-up seems to promote a culture in which the defense does not play a very
active role.
A role of an expert in the adversarial system has its own code of practice. The precise role and responsibilities should be clarified. The lack of
clear standards also leave experts are open to the manipulation by lawyers
and the strong foundation of the adversarial bias.
3. Changes On Role of an Expert.
The Inquisitorial Tribunals take the initiative in ascertaining the facts
and the law. Their responsibility and focus is to investigate and examine
the facts on the court procedures, where the litigation and arbitration were
emphasized, or even criticized by the opposing party. However, the Adversarial System allows both countries in presenting the evidences of truths
that were tested and cross-examined in the consent of the other.
Both tribunal and court performs at different roles in ruling on motions, admitting the evidences, handling the objections and instructing the
jury. The tribunal is permitted in initiative and harmonizing the approach
257
in cross-examination and any redirected examination in putting the witnesses into questions. The tribunal members may still investigate matters
and the parties are allowed to present the case without any intervention from
the tribunal. All in all, the process serves a balanced mechanism for the
lawyers. In adversarial system, the rule is tagged as a democratic tradition
and assumes that the admissibility of the evidences as well as the witnesses
are founded with expertise. The role of the judge, jury, lawyers, and experts
are emphasized in the adversarial process and assumed that the parties are
skilled enough to drive their own advocacies in investigating and presenting the evidences and challenging the other.
Module 2
1. Read and translate the following text into Russian.
Challenges and Opportunities in the Future
of Digital Forensics and CSI
The field of digital forensics is fast paced, with new innovations and
changes occurring all the time. With the dynamic nature of this field, however, come some inherent challenges. Consider, for example, that computer systems and networks are now exponentially more complex than they
were even a decade ago. As a result, it can be more difficult for investigators to recover digital evidence and do their jobs as more advanced techniques may be needed to carry out investigations thoroughly. There are several cybersecurity challenges today and more are expected in the future.
One of the most important challenges is the increase in sophisticated and
coordinated cyber-attacks, which can cause significant damage to companies and individuals. Another challenge is the increasing number of devices connected to the internet, which creates more potential entry points for
attackers. There is also an increase in the use of advanced technologies such
as artificial intelligence, which poses new challenges in terms of security.
Likewise, cybercriminals have also become savvier. They know how
to disguise files, get rid of incriminating data, and launch malicious attacks
258
without hardly leaving a trace. This, combined with the ready availability
of malware-as-a-service (MaaS), makes the job of a digital forensics’ investigator more challenging than ever. In many ways, computer forensics
experts and cybercriminals are constantly going back and forth, each trying to outsmart the other. There are also many exciting opportunities and
innovations emerging in the field. Current digital forensics techniques and
tools (such as live analysis and cross-drive analysis) now make it possible
for investigators to collect evidence and learn about a potential case more
readily. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence (AI) innovations are also making
it possible for digital forensics professionals to collect and analyze more
data in less time, identifying patterns and revealing new insights. Only time
will tell how AI will be used in the realm of digital forensics, but the future
is promising.
2. Read the following text and render it in English. Match the
headings below with the paragraphs. There are two extra headings.
Use the headings as the plan of your monologue.
Headings:
1. A New Order is established.
2. Dogma as a motive for murder.
3. On a hit list.
4. Chinese independence.
5. The dispute escalates.
6. No answers as yet.
7. An unholy killing.
8. American expert opinion.
Murder in Dharamsala.
A. On February 5, 1997, three Tibetans were murdered on the campus of the Buddhist School of Dialectics, close to the Dalai Lama’s residence in McLeod Ganj, near Dharamsala, India. The victims were the founder and principal of the Institute of Buddhist Dialectics, Venerable Lobsang
Gyatso, age 70, and two of his students, Lobsang Ngawang, 25, and Ngawang Latto, 23. All three were reportedly killed with sharp weapons.
259
Lobsang Gyatso died at the scene of the crime. The two monks were rushed
to a nearby hospital, where they succumbed to their injuries.
B. Five Tibetans were detained and formally questioned. Lobsang
Gyatso had reportedly received threatening letters prior to the attack. One
theory is that the killer or killers are connected with followers of the deity
Dorje Shugden. The god’s followers, known as Shugdens, consider themselves guardians of Tibetan Buddhism. Harshly dogmatic, they have branded the Dalai Lama a traitor for reaching out to other branches of Buddhism. In the past year, the Dalai Lama has denounced the Shugden sect as
a hostile faction and a crass, commercial cult providing what police suspect may be the motive for murder.
C. ‘I think there's no doubt that Shugden was behind the killings,’
says Robert Thurman, America's foremost Buddhist scholar and an old
friend of the Dalai Lama’s. “The three were stabbed repeatedly and cut up
in a way that was like an exorcism." The Shugdens worship a swordwielding god who is often depicted wearing necklaces of human heads
symbols of conquered vices and transgressions. As one of the minor Dharmapala, or protectors of the faith, Dorje Shugden has for centuries had an
underground following among Tibetans obsessed with doctrinal purity.
D. About 15 years ago, the Dalai Lama began to voice concern that
the sect was gaining strength and sowing discord. Then, in 1991, a senior
monk named Kelsang Gyatso established a new Dorje Shugden order based
in England, calling it the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT). The NKT flourished by promising spiritual rewards for cash an unholy sales pitch that
helped trigger confrontation with the Dalai Lama's circle. Through
a spokesman, Kelsang insisted that his followers had nothing to do with
the murders in Dharamsala and that their idol's "wrathful aspect" is only
symbolic: "Even if my best friend did the murders, I would condemn it,"
he said.
E. But the NKT accuses the Dalai Lama of selling out Tibet by promoting its "autonomy" within China rather than outright "independence."
The dispute heated up early last year, when the Dalai Lama urged Tibetan
Buddhists to avoid the Shugdens. Soon after, the NKT claimed his remarks
260
had led to harassment of Shugden followers in India. Then the threats began. A letter to the Tibetan Women's Association in Dharamsala warned
that "there will be bloodshed in the monasteries".
F. Police say the five Shugden followers they questioned last winter
are not suspected killers but might be witnesses to a well-organized murder
plot. The leader of the Dorje Shugden devotees, Geshe Dragpa Gyaltsan,
said his followers are innocent. "We are supposed to have a hit list of 14
men," he said. "We don't have a hit list, and it would be completely against
the advice and guidance of Dorje Shugden if we did." The mystery of the
Dharamsala murders is far from solved. No one saw the attackers slip in or
out of the monastery chamber. So for now, there's no proof that the Shugdens are behind the killings. But there also are few alternative theories that
can explain this unholy crime.
3. Read the texts and discuss the topics in the group.
1. White-Collar Crime.
The preoccupation with lower-class crime implies that crime committed by the more ‘respectable’ members of society is not a significant
form of criminal activity. This view was, however, challenged by critical
criminology that asserted that ‘different social groups are treated differently for behavior which is objectively identical’. For example, benefit fraud
and tax evasion both entail a loss of revenue for the state but the former
(which is identified with poorer persons at the lower end of the social
scale) is proceeded against much more vigorously. The traditional neglect
of crime other than that committed by the working class was challenged in
the 1940s by Edwin Sutherland. He pioneered the concept of white-collar
crime that he defined as ‘a crime committed by a person of respectability
and high social status in the course of his occupation’.
However, this definition raised numerous problems which included
the meaning which should be given to terms used by Sutherland such as
‘respectability’ and ‘high social status’, and led to white-collar crime being
sub-divided into discrete areas of white-collar criminal activity. Another
sub-division entailed of crime committed by ‘respectable’ people is that of
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]