Unit 3 Discussion Points

Task 1. Discuss the following points with your fellow students:

1. Counterfeit documents pose a great danger to a society

2. Identification of counterfeit documents

3. Tapping public funds in Russia

4. Fraudulent credentials as a cover for terrorists and criminals

5. Illegal aliens in the area you live in

6. All kinds of con artists

Task 2. Give a short newspaper review on the use of aliens (both legal and illegal) as cheap workforce. Remember that your interview should appeal to the interests of the interested readers. It can be neutral, emotional, and descriptive. Prove your point of view.

Task 3. Work in pairs. Discuss any problems of false credentials of today. You may speak about paper people in your country, the documents forged more often than others, ways to combat the problem, abuse of people’s confidence and so on.One of the students is supposed to introduce a subject of mutual interest, the other student disagrees or agrees with his partner’s point of view.

Task 4. Retell the text as if you were: a) a government expert, b) a law-enforcement official, c) a representative of the business community, d) a representative of the public, e) an illegal alien, f) a vital records office manager, g) a paper person

Task 5. Speak on the topic: “I am not easily deceived by fraudulent credentials because ….”

Task 5. Team work. Case Study: The following situations are based on real cases from the federal courts. Consider the arguments, and then decide how you would rule. Compare your answers with actual case results

Perry, a young state trooper, was promoted to sergeant for bravery in the line of duty. Then he learned that every ser­geant in the state highway patrol had a quota of 100 speeding tickets to give out per week. "That's unfair to drivers, and it's illegal," he complained to his com­mander. "I refuse to comply."

When Perry was demoted, he sued the department for loss of wages and punitive damages. "Judge," he argued, "you can't lower a man's rank and salary for speaking out against illegal conduct — espe­cially in the police department."

Would you decide for Perry or the state?

Chapter 7: The Insanity Defense is Insane unit 1. Giving the summary of the text Text 1

Task 1. Answer the questions:

1. Do you think criminals are normal people?

2. What is insanity defense?

3. Can a person be convicted if he/she is insane?

Task 2. Read the text to get the main idea paying special attention to the underlined parts of the text (key words and word combinations

To millions of Americans, the verdict was astounding. John W. Hinckley, Jr. the man who carefully mapped the attempted assassination of the Pres­ident, the gunman who fired a bullet into Ronald Reagan's chest and horribly wounded his press secretary and shot two others — was found not guilty by reason of insanity. He would be confined to a federal mental hospital until the judge and psychiatrists decide re­leasing him would not pose a danger to himself or others. Outside the courtroom, Hinckley's chief at­torney quipped, "Another day, an­other dollar."

The reaction was overwhelming. Angry constituents bombarded my office and those of other lawmakers with phone calls and letters: "The system stinks." "A rich kid can buy his way out of anything." "Hinckley wasn't crazy; that jury was."

Yet we should not blame the jury. We should blame the law. It is obvious that the insanity defense should be drastically limited.

I agree with Baltimore State's Attorney William A. Swisher that the insanity defense is "being used by people who are intelligent, plan their crimes over a long period of time, then deliberately carry them out." I agree with my colleague Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.), a former prosecutor, that "70 percent of all defendants could provide as good an insanity defense as John Hinckley." And I agree, too, with Dr. Abraham L. Halpern, director of psychiatry at University Hospital in Port Chester, N.Y., that "now that the damage has been done, Hinckley will be remembered less as the travesty of justice that it is, than as the driving force that final­ly moved legislators to bring an end to the mockery of criminal justice known as the insanity defense."

Until recent years, defendants found not guilty by reason of insan­ity (NGRI) were usually committed automatically and confined until deemed no longer dangerous. As a rule, that meant many years, fre­quently a lifetime, in a remote asy­lum. Most NGRI acquittees spent longer periods in mental institu­tions than they would have in prisons if they had pleaded guilty.

But no more. The development of new psychoactive drugs has con­verted mental institutions from neglected warehouses into rapid-turnover treatment centers. Long-term hospitalizations are rare, although the drugs are no sure-fire control for mental disorders.

Equally important, a series of federal- and state-court decisions has greatly limited the confinement of NGRIs. Today most states must hold judicial hearings before com­mitting the NGRI acquittee. Many must have treatment plans for each patient and grant regular hearings to determine whether the patient is still dangerous. Some must even obtain a judge’s permission if the patient objects to being transferred from a less secure unit to a more secure one. And if a patient doesn't like his medication, he may even go to federal court before he is com­pelled to take it.