|
Читайте также: |
LAW AND JUDICIARY
Практикум по развитию навыков устной речи на английском языке
УЧЕБНО-МЕТОДИЧЕСКОЕ ПОСОБИЕ
Федеральная таможенная служба
Государственное образовательное учреждение
высшего профессионального образования
«Российская таможенная Академия»
Владивостокский филиал
«LAW AND JUDICIARY»
Практикум по развитию навыков устной речи на английском языке
учебно-методическое пособие для студентов 4 курса специальности 030501.65 Юриспруденция
Владивосток
УДК 811
ББК 81.2 Англ
П69
LAW AND JUDICIARY: учебно-методическое пособие для студентов 4 курса специальности 030501.65 Юриспруденция/ сост. Н.А.Болотова; Российская таможенная Академия, Владивостокский филиал. - Владивосток: ВФ РТА, 2008. – с.
ISBN 978-5-9590-0483-5
Учебно-методическое пособие ставит целью обучение студентов юридической специальности владению навыками устной речи для решения профессиональных задач. Подготовлено в соответствии с современными требованиями к учебному процессу и является частью учебно-методического комплекса дисциплины «Спецязыковая подготовка»
Предназначено для студентов очной и заочной форм обучения Владивостокского филиала Российской таможенной Академии.
Составитель: Н.А.Болотова, доцент кафедры иностранных языков ВФ РТА
Рецензент: Е.Ш.Надибаидзе, к.ф.н., доцент, зав. кафедрой
английского языка юридического института ДВГУ,
ISBN 978-5-9590-0483-5
Contents
Introduction
Chapter I. Crime in America
Chapter II. The Criminals are Winning
Chapter III. How Americans Cope with Crime
Chapter IV. The Witness: Forgotten Man.
Chapter V. Too Many Lawyers
Chapter VI. The Insanity Defense is Insane
Chapter VII. Paper People: the Hidden Plague.
Chapter VIII. Why do Judges keep Letting Him off?”
Appendix
Ведение
Настоящее учебно-методическое пособие предназначено для студентов 4 курса юридического факультета ВФ РТА дневной и заочной форм обучения. Цель данного пособия – обучение студентов- юристов чтению и переводу терминологических текстов по специальности, а также развитие навыков устной речи и формированию коммуникативной компетенции студентов в контексте профессиональной ориентации.
Оно создано на основе аутентичных текстов, изданных в России и за рубежом и вошедших в хрестоматию, выпущенную на кафедре в 2000г., и успешно прошло апробацию в течение 8 лет на кафедре иностранных языков Российской таможенной академии (Владивостокский филиал).
Пособие состоит из 8 глав и охватывает такие темы как: судопроизводство в США, уголовное правосудие США, профессиональные проблемы адвокатов, проблемы преступления и наказания, подготовка и востребованность специалистов юридических профессий и т.д.
Пособие представляет собой сборник аутентичных текстов, речевых и лексико-грамматических упражнений, направленных на развитие устной речи и стимулирующих свободное говорение по заданной теме.
Количество упражнений по каждой теме определяется как емкостью самой темы, так и степенью трудности ее усвоения слушателями, родным языком которых является русский
Виды упражнений определяются характером лексического материала, подлежащего тренировке, поэтому в разных разделах могут быть представлены разнообразные виды коммуникативных упражнений, направленные на развитие навыков устной речи на базе профессионально-ориентированной лексики. Каждая тематическая серия упражнений расширяет представление об изучаемых явлениях. Упражнения построены по принципу нарастания языковых трудностей. Подход основывается на существующих когнитивных возможностях слушателей и соотносит известное с неизвестным.
Пособие может быть использовано как для работы в аудитории, так и для самостоятельной работы слушателей. Оно отражает строй современной английской речи и может быть рекомендовано лицам, изучающим современный английский язык, преподавателям, а так же тем, кому по роду своей деятельности приходится сталкиваться с юридической терминологией.
CHAPTER 1. Crime in America
UNIT 1. Giving the summary of the text
Text 1
Task 1. Answer the questions:
1. What do you know about crime in America?
2. What are serial killers?
3. Why are people so afraid of serial killers?
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)
Remember serial killers? A few years ago, these twisted creatures haunted not just the American imagination but, it seemed, America's real streets and parks: an official of the Justice Department was widely reported as saying that 4,000 of America's annual 24,000-or-so murders were attributable to serial killers.
America loves its myths — and that was pretty much what the "wave of serial killings " turned out to be: 4,000 people are not victims of serial murderers; 4,000 murders remain unsolved each year. According to cool-headed academic research, maybe 50 people a year are victims of serial murderers; the figure has been stable for 20 years.
Serial murderers obviously form a bizarre and special category of criminals. People might well believe extraordinary things about them. But about crime in general, surely ordinary folk have a better understanding — don't they? Well, consider two widely-held beliefs:
"America has experienced a crime wave in the past 20 years." No. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, violent crime fell in the first half of the 1980s, rose in the second half, and has been falling in the 1990s. Over the past two decades, it has fallen slightly. Non-violent property crimes (theft, larceny and burglary) have followed similar patterns. So has murder, its peak was in 1980.
"America is more criminal than other countries." Again, no. According to an International Crime Survey, carried out bythe Ministry of Justice in the Netherlands, America is not obviously more criminal than anywhere else. You are more likely to be burgled in Australia or New Zealand. You are more likely to be robbed with violence in Spain; you are more likely to be robbed without violence in Spain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. You are more likely to be raped or indecently assaulted in Canada, Australia or western Germany. And so on.
American misconceptions raise two questions. First, why are Americans so afraid of crime? (As according to Gallup polls, they are: in recent years Americans have put crime either first or second in their list of problems facing the country; in Britain, crime limps along between second and sixth in people's priorities.) Second why should Americans be so punitive in their attitude to criminals? (As they also seem to be: when asked by the International Crime Survey what should happen to a young burglar who has committed more than one offence, 53% of Americans reckoned he should go to prison, compared with 37% of English and Welsh, 22% of Italians, and 13% of Germans and French.)
One possible explanation is that Americans are irrational in their attitudes to crime. But that cannot be right: crime imposes huge costs on the country and has helped turn parts of American inner cities into nightmares of violence. Given that, it is hardly surprising that Americans should fear the spread of crime. But it remains surprising that American public attitudes should be so different from those in other countries which also have dangerous inner cities. No, there seems to be something else feeding Americans' fear and loathing of criminals. More probably, two things: the violence of American crime, and its irrationality. And it is with these that America's real crime-policy problems begin.
Vocabulary notes
| bizarre to haunt | причудливый, странный преследовать, часто посещать |
| larceny | воровство |
| misconception | неправильное представление |
| to limp | медленно двигаться, плестись |
| to reckon | считать |
| to impose | облагать, налагать |
| nightmare | кошмар |
| punitive | карательный |
| loathing | отвращение, ненависть |
Task 3. Read the text again and make sure you know all underlined parts of the text. Give their Russian equivalents
Task 4. Answer the following questions:
1. What does this passage mainly discuss?
2. What is the Americans’ attitude to serial killers?
3. How many people actually become victims of serial murderers?
4. What are Americans’ widely-held beliefs?
5. Is America more criminal than other countries?
6. What questions do American misconceptions raise?
7. Why are Americans so afraid of crime?
Task 5. Read the following statements. Agree or disagree with them. Give arguments to prove your point.
1. America loves its myths.
2. According to cool-headed academic research, maybe 4000 people a year are victims of serial murderers.
3. America has experienced a crime wave in the past 30 years.
4. America is obviously more criminal than anywhere else.
5. Americans are very rational in their attitudes to crime.
6. Americans are not afraid of crime.
Task 6. Compose the questions. Use the following words and phrases from the text
to haunt one’s imagination, to be attributable to, to turn out to, cool-headed academic research, ordinary folk, a crime wave, to follow a pattern, to be indecently assaulted, to commit an offence, to fear, loathing
Task 7. Explain in English what the words and word combinations mean. Use them in your own sentences
Serial killers, myths, to haunt, extraordinary, violent crime, misconception, priority, punitive, irrational, inner cities, crime policy, burglary, Gallup polls, nightmare
Task 8. Practice the speech patterns given below. Make up two sentences of your own on each pattern
1. It is hardly surprising that Americans should fear the spread of crime. But it remains surprising that American public attitudes should be so different from those in other countries which also have dangerous inner cities.
2. There seems to be something else feeding Americans' fear and loathing of criminals. American crime policy seems to have become an area where the arguments admittedly often complex and finely balanced take second place to the lobbying. Crack consumption seems to be falling.
3. You are more likely to be robbed with violence in Spain; you are more likely to be robbed without violence in Spain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. You are more likely to be raped or indecently assaulted in Canada, Australia or western Germany. Competition is likely to inspire new systems for delivering legal services, such as group insurance programs.
4. It is with these that America's real crime-policy problems begin. It is the irrationality of such violence that terrifies.
5. Non-violent property crimes (theft, larceny and burglary) have followed similar patterns. So has murder, its peak was in 1980. Many legal scholars regard the right of privacy as inherent in the Bill of Rights. So does Justice Brandeis. They are all vulnerable to invasions of privacy. So are we.
Task 9. Make the summary of the text. Use the key words and word combinations
Text 2
Task 1. Answer the questions:
1. What’s the difference between violent and non-violent crimes?
2. What crimes would you call violent?
3. What can stop a criminal from using unnecessary violence?
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)
Murder as public choice
America tops the developed-country crime league only in one category: murder. While you are more likely to be burgled in Sydney — than in Los Angeles, you are 20 times more likely to be murdered in Los Angeles than you are in Sydney.
American crime is not only more violent; it is also irrational in its violence. Think about a person held up at gunpoint who fails to co-operate with a robber. "Since both the risk of apprehension and the potential punishment escalate when the victim is killed," says Franklin Zimring, a criminologist at the University of California, Berkeley, "the rational robber would be well advised to meet flight or refusal by avoiding conflict and seeking another victim." Yet Americans commonly get killed in these circumstances, and it is the irrationality of such violence that terrifies.
There is nothing odd or surprising in the observation that America is more violent than other countries, that Americans are more afraid of crime, and they are therefore more punitive. But the problem with America's criminal-justice policy lies in that sequence of thought. By eliding violence and crime, Americans fail to identify the problem that sets them apart from the rest of the rich world, which is violence, rather than crime generally. Americans are right to think they have a special problem of violence. They are wrong to think their country is being overwhelmed by crime of every sort. Yet because many people do think that, they are throwing their weight behind indiscriminate policies which, at huge cost, bludgeon crime as a whole but fail to tackle the problem of violence.
America now imprisons seven times as many people (proportionately) as does the average European country, largely as a result of get-tough-on-crime laws. These are the laws other countries are now studying with admiration.
First came mandatory sentencing laws, requiring courts to impose minimum sentences on offenders for particular crimes. Michigan, for instance, has a mandatory life sentence for an offender caught with 650 grams of cocaine. A federal law condemns anybody convicted of possession of more than five grams of crack to a minimum of five years in prison.
Then came "three-strike laws", supported by Bill Clinton and adopted by 20-odd states and the federal government. These impose a mandatory life sentence on anybody convicted of a third felony. The seriousness of the felony, and therefore the impact of the law, varies from state to state. In California, in the most celebrated case, a man who stole a pizza as his third felony got life. His case was extreme, but not unique: another man got life after stealing three steaks.
Vocabulary notes
| To hold up at gunpoint | держать на мушке, держать под прицелом |
| to escalate | увеличиваться, возрастать |
| to meet flight | обратиться в бегство |
| to elide | обходить молчанием |
| to overwhelm | овладевать, переполнять |
| apprehension | арест |
| to bludgeon | бить дубинкой |
| to tackle the problem | взяться за решение задачи |
| mandatory | обязательный |
Task 3. Read the text again and make sure you know all underlined parts of the text. Give their Russian equivalents
Task 4. Answer the following questions:
1. What is the peculiarity of American crime in general?
2. What terrifies Americans most of all?
3. What are Americans right and wrong about when it comes to the problem of violence?
4. What problem sets them apart from the rest of the rich world?
5. What get-tough-on-crime laws are now in force in the USA?
6. What do three-strike laws mean?
Task 5. Agree or disagree with the following statements:
1. American crime is violent and irrational in its violence.
2. There is something odd and surprising in the observation that America is more violent than other countries.
3. Americans are more punitive because they are afraid of crime.
4. Americans are right to think their country is being overwhelmed by crime of every sort.
5. Get-tough-on-crime laws are the laws other countries are now studying with loathing.
6. Mandatory sentencing laws require courts to impose maximum sentences on offenders for particular crimes.
7. Three-strike laws impose a mandatory life sentence on anybody convicted of a third felony.
Task 6. Ask the questions to which the following statements are the answers:
1. America tops the developed-country crime league only in one category: murder.
2. The rational robber would be well advised to meet flight or refusal.
3. Americans commonly get killed in these circumstances.
4. Indiscriminate policies bludgeon crime as a whole but fail to tackle the problem of violence.
5. These impose a mandatory life sentence on anybody convicted of a third felony.
6. A man who stole a pizza as his third felony got life.
7. Americans are afraid of crime.
Task 7. Explain in English what the words and word combinations mean. Use them in your own sentences
to top the developed-country crime league, to fail to co-operate, to meet flight, sequence of thought, to set apart from, to throw one’s weight behind, to bludgeon crime, get-tough-on-crime laws, mandatory sentencing, three-strike laws, 20-odd, unique, to condemn, to convict
.
Task 8. Practice the speech patterns given below. Make up two sentences of your own on each pattern
1. The rational robber would be well advised to meet flight or refusal by avoiding conflict and seeking another victim. By eliding violence and crime, Americans fail to identify the problem that sets them apart from the rest of the rich world.
2. Americans are right to think they have a special problem of violence. They are wrong to think their country is being overwhelmed by crime of every sort. The highway patrol was wrong to punish the trooper for exercising his First Amendment right to speak out on a matter of public concern.
3. America now imprisons seven times as many people (proportionately) as does the average European country. It can in no way be considered fair to give one side twice as many strikes as the other, be it state or defendant.
4. There is nothing odd or surprising in the observation that America is more violent than other countries. There was something vaguely dirty about the man.
5. Yet because many people do think that, they are throwing their weight behind indiscriminate policies which, at huge cost, bludgeon crime as a whole but fail to tackle the problem of violence. What if the case actually does go to trial? But the question is: is this sensible, even if it does work?
Task 9. Make the summary of the text. Use the key words and word combinations
Text 3
Task 1. Answer the questions:
1. Do criminals always spend most of their sentences in prison?
2. Why are some criminals let out early?
3. Does prison really work?
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)
Now, the fashion is for " truth-in-sentencing ". Such laws require the criminal to spend most of his sentence (usually 85%) in prison, rather than making him eligible for parole after, say, four to six years of a ten-year sentence. There is much to be said for a system that does not leave the public feeling cheated about what sentences actually amount to. But, by imposing the 85% average on all offenders, "truth in sentencing" makes it impossible to discriminate between people who seem genuinely remorseful and might be let out early and the more dangerous types who should serve the whole of their sentence.
Since the early 1970s, when the first tough-sentencing laws were introduced, the prison population has risen from 200,000 to 1.1m. If that increase were made up mostly of the violent people that have engendered America's crime panic, that could be counted as a blow against violent crime. But it is not: the biggest increase is in non-violent drug offenders.
Between 1980 and now, the proportion of those sentenced to prison for non-violent property crimes has remained about the same (two-fifths). The number of those sentenced for drugs has soared (from one-tenth to over one-third).
And so what, you might ask? Non-violent crime still matters. Even if America's crime panic is related to violence, it is right and proper that the system should be seeking to minimize all crime. The prison population is going up. The crime figures are going down. Let 'em rot. As the right says: "Prison works."
Or does it? That depends on what you mean by "works". To many people, prison can strongly influence the trend in the crime rate: putting a lot of people in prison, they believe, can achieve a long-term reversal of rising crime. This must be doubtful. Yes, crime is falling now. But it also fell in the early 1980s, rose in the late 1980s and fell again in the early 1990s. The prison population rose through the whole period.
If there is any single explanation forthese changes, it would seem to lie in demographics. Young men commit by far and away the largest number of crimes so when there are more of them around, proportionately, the crime rate goes up..
But demographics cannot be the only explanation. If it were, crime would have fallen in the second half of the 1980s, when there were fewer teenagers. In fact, it rose.
Why? The answer is probably drugs. What seems to have happened is that the appearance of crack in late 1985 shook up the drugs-distribution business. The number of dealers increased, kids with no capital got into the business and gangs competed murderously for market share.
This theory would account for the decline in homicides in the 1990s. Crackconsumption seems to be falling — possibly just because drugs go in and out of fashion, possibly because teenagers have seen how bad the stuff is. And the market has matured as well as declined. Policemen and researchers say territories have been carved out, boundaries set. With competition less rife, murders have declined.
The significance of all this is that it loosens the connection between the rise in the prison population and the fall in the crime rate. Crime might have fallen anyway. A combination of demographic and social explanations, rather than changes in the prison population, seems to account for much of the changing pattern of crime.
Vocabulary notes
| eligible for | имеющий право, подходящий |
| parole | досрочное освобождение |
| remorseful | раскаивающийся, полный раскаяния |
| to engender | порождать |
| to soar | повышаться, увеличиваться (стремительно) |
| to matter | иметь значение |
| reversal | изменение направления |
| to mature | созреть, доводить до полного развития |
| rife | частый, распространенный |
| to account for | объяснять |
Task 3. Read the text again and make sure you know all underlined parts of the text. Give their Russian equivalents
Task 4. Answer the following questions:
1. What is the purpose of "truth in sentencing" laws?
2. Who engendered America's crime panic?
3. Why is the prison population going up?
4. What is a popular misconception about prisons?
5. In what way do drugs influence crime figures?
6. What factors really account for much of the changing pattern of crime?
Task 5. Agree or disagree with the following statements. Prove your point by giving arguments:
1. Truth-in-sentencing laws require the criminal to spend his entire sentence in prison.
2. "Truth in sentencing" makes it possible to discriminate between people who seem genuinely remorseful and the more dangerous types.
3. The number of those sentenced for drugs has risen sharply.
4. The prison population is going down. The crime figures are going up.
5. Young men commit by far and away the smallest number of crimes.
6. Drugs are always in fashion.
7. A combination of demographic and changes in the prison population accounts for much of the changing pattern of crime.
Task 6. Compose the questions. Use the following words and phrases from the text:
To spend sentence in prison, to feel cheated, to serve the whole of the sentence, crime figures, to achieve, single explanation, to get into the business, market share, homicide, to go in and out of fashion, to loosen the connection between
Task 7. Explain in English what the words and word combinations mean. Use them in your own sentences
truth-in-sentencing, to discriminate between, genuinely remorseful, non-violent drug offenders, «Prison works», a long-term reversal, demographics, to compete murderously, the stuff, rife competition, by far and away
.
Task 8. Practice the speech patterns given below. Make up two sentences of your own on each pattern
1. Such laws require the criminal to spend most of his sentence in prison, rather than making him eligible for parole. A combination of demographic and social explanations, rather than changes in the prison population, seems to account for much of the changing pattern of crime. People charged with possession or small dealing may opt togo through a drugs-treatment program rather than stand trial.
2. There is much to be said for a system that does not leave the public feeling cheated. As government has tried to regulate more aspects of human life, there is more and more to sue about.
3. Between 1980 and now, the proportion of those sentenced to prison for non-violent property crimes has remained about the same (two-fifths). The number of those sentenced for drugs has soared (from one-tenth to over one-third). Increasingly, those polled are taking measures to protect themselves against thieves.
4. Non-violent crime still matters. It doesn’t matter what he says, no one will listen to him. You’ve got a good alibi, and nothing else matters.
5. Crime might have fallen anyway. And so what, you might ask? There might still be a justification for putting more people in prison.
6. It is right and proper that the system should be seeking to minimize all crime. The opposing parties sought to make peace and work out some settlement.
Task 9. Make the summary of the text. Use the key words and word combinations
Text 4
Task 1. Answer the questions:
1. Could the overall level of crime be lowered by imprisoning more and more criminals?
2. Could such intangibles like pain and suffering be monetized?
3. What is the most effective way to reduce violence?
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)
That said, there might still be a justification for putting more people in prison: if by doing so you lowered the overall level of crime by taking criminals out of circulation. Indeed, if a small number of young men commit a disproportionately large number of crimes, then locking up this particular group might depress crime a lot. Of course, the proposition is self-evidently true. If you banged up for life anyone who had ever committed a crime, however trivial, crime would plummet. But the question is: is this sensible, even if it does work?
Looking across the states’ different crime rates and imprisonment rates, there is no correlation between the two. True, you would not necessarily expect one: states are different and tough-sentencing laws might be a reaction to a high crime rates as much as a way of bringing it down. But more sophisticated analyses confirm there is no link.
And, just as there is no convincing argument that prison effectively reduces the level of crime, nor does there seem to be a convincing cost-benefit argument in favor of prison. One often-used estimate, which monetizes intangibles like pain and suffering, calculates the annual costs of crime at $450 billion. This makes prison look a bargain: its annual bill is $35 billion, while the criminal-justice system, including police and courts, costs $100 billion. But if you calculate the costs of crime on the basis of physical damage — hospital bills or the cost of replacing stolen goods — the figure comes out at a mere $18 billion a year. The moral is that, while the cost of crime must be high, no one has any real idea what it is.
What you can say is that, out of the range of options for dealing with criminals, prison is among the most expensive. One currently popular alternative is the " drugs court ". Under this system, people charged with possession or small dealing may opt togo through a drugs-treatment program rather than stand trial. Treatment costs $3,500-15,000 a year, depending on whether it is residential or not; prison costs $22,000. There is also some evidence that these courts are better than prisons at discouraging re-offending, though, since they are relatively new, the evidence is not conclusive.
Of course, get-tough policies raise questions other than that of efficacy. One is moral. Is it right to lock somebody up for life for stealing a pizza? Another is racial. These concerns have not, it seems, made much of an impact on public opinion. According to Mr. Dilulio, "Americans have lost interest in the Anglo-Saxon, innocent-until-proven-guilty model of justice. They want to get the bad guys. "
Yet even by this measure, the get-tough policies are misfiring. Around 100,000 people go to prison for the 6m-odd violent crimes committed a year. The system is not getting the bad guys. What it is getting is a great many drug-taking,drug-dealing, small-time thieves. Conservatives argue that most people in prison are either violent or repeat offenders. True, but many of the repeat offenders are addicts financing their habit through drug dealing or burglary.
America is awash with academics, judges, commissioners and policemen who know and study crime. Almost all of research doubts the efficacy of what is going on in criminal justice, and fears for the consequences. Almost all the professionals agree that America's problem is violence, and that the way to reduce violence is to restrict access to guns. And on this — though the point is rarely noticed — the public agrees: 62%, according to a recent Gallup poll, favor stricter gun control.
American crime policy seems to have become an area where the arguments admittedly often complex and finely balanced take second place to the lobbying power of special-interest groups. The effectiveness of one, the National Rifle Association, has been well documented. A less familiar one is the prison-building lobby.
Prisons have been likened to the defense industry as a government subsidy to the white working class. For areas hit by the end of the cold war, and by the ups and downs of agriculture, prisons provide attractively recession-proof employment. As the flier for the American Jail Association last year said, "Jails are BIG BUSINESS". Towns compete to get them.
Vocabulary notes
| to depress crime | понизить уровень преступности |
| to plummet | резко снизиться |
| to bang up | запереть |
| correlation | соотношение |
| estimate | оценка |
| intangibles | нечто неуловимое, нематериальное |
| bargain | выгодная сделка, покупка |
| to stand trial | предстать перед судом |
| small-time | мелкий |
| repeat offender | рецидивист, |
| awash with | зд. полный |
| recession-proof | защита от экономического спада |
Task 3. Read the text again and make sure you know all underlined parts of the text. Give their Russian equivalents
Task 4. Answer the following questions:
1. Is this sensible to bang up for life anyone who has ever committed a crime?
2. Is there any correlation between crime rates and imprisonment rates?
3. Does prison effectively reduce the level of crime?
4. What makes prison look a bargain?
5. What is a currently popular alternative to prison?
6. What questions do get-tough policies raise?
7. Is the system getting the bad guys and why?
8. What way to reduce violence is backed up by the author?
9. What lobbies support the prison system?
Task 5. Read the statements. Agree or disagree with them. Agreement or disagreement should be followed by some comment
1. Putting more people in prison lowers the overall level of crime by taking criminals out of circulation.
2. There is no correlation between crime rates and imprisonment rates.
3. Prison effectively reduces the level of crime.
4. Tough-sentencing laws are a reaction to a high crime rates.
5. The get-tough policies are misfiring.
6. Jails are big business.
Task 6. Ask the questions to which the following statements are the answers:
A small number of young men commit a disproportionately large number of crimes.
The overall level of crime can be lowered by taking criminals out of circulation.
Tough-sentencing laws might be a reaction to a high crime rates.
One often-used estimate calculates the annual costs of crime at $450 billion.
Its annual bill is $35 billion.
The criminal-justice system, including police and courts, costs $100 billion.
These courts are better than prisons at discouraging re-offending.
Many of the repeat offenders are addicts financing their habit through drug dealing or burglary.
America's problem is violence.
The way to reduce violence is to restrict access to guns.
Task 7. Explain in English what the words and word combinations mean. Use them in your own sentences
To take criminals out of circulation, to depress crime, trivial crime, sophisticated analysis, cost-benefit argument, to monetize, drugs court, small dealing, the conclusive evidence, efficacy, innocent-until-proven-guilty model of justice, to misfire, addicts, to lobby, the ups and downs, the cold war
.
Task 8. Practice the speech patterns given below. Make up two sentences of your own on each pattern
1. Locking up this particular group might depress crime a lot. Putting a lot of people in prison, they believe, can achieve a long-term reversal of rising crime. Dumping politically charged disputes on the judiciary dissipates our respect for the courts as institutions above the hurly-burly of politics. Sentencing must prove to the public at large that crime does not pay.
If you banged up for life anyone who had ever committed a crime, however trivial, crime would plummet. If everyone told the truth, juries would be required in but a tiny fraction of cases and a main cause of trial delays would be removed.
3. And, just as there is no convincing argument that prison effectively reduces the level of crime, nor does there seem to be a convincing cost-benefit argument in favor of prison. I do not think that these sentences protect the public sufficiently. Nor do they deter the professional, career criminals for whom a short spell in prison has become an acceptable occupational hazard.
4. The system is not getting the bad guys. What it is getting is a great many drug-taking, drug-dealing, small-time thieves. What is taking so long is jury selection. What it means is that six out of seven burglaries are never solved
5. Conservatives argue that most people in prison are either violent or repeat offenders. They say, he is supposed to earn either life sentence or capital punishment for the first-degree murder.
6. Tough-sentencing laws might be a reaction to a high crime rates as much as a way of bringing it down. But if you calculate the costs of crime on the basis of physical damage — hospital bills or the cost of replacing stolen goods — the figure comes out at a mere $18 billion a year. The risk of getting caught is a major consideration for criminals too.
7. Around 100,000 people go to prison for the 6m-odd violent crimes committed a year. She’s 30-odd, as far as I know. The price is $ 500-odd and it’s quite reasonable.
Task 9. Make the summary of the text. Use the key words and word combinations
Дата добавления: 2015-10-26; просмотров: 120 | Нарушение авторских прав
| <== предыдущая страница | | | следующая страница ==> |
| X. Match the halves of the phrases. | | | Vocabulary notes |