Vocabulary notes.

Pressured	под давлением
inmate	обитатель
to adjudge	выносить приговор
to stab	заколоть, наносить удар ножом
to teem with	кишеть
plea	защита подсудимого
diminished capacity	ограниченная способность
to feign	пртворяться, симулировать
hardcore criminal	закоренелый преступник
accomplice	соучастник
to bamboozle	одурачивать
to skyjack	угонять самолет
to gloat	злорадствовать, торжествовать

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 mistakes do psychi­atrists and state-court judges make and why?

2. Why did George Fitzsimmons murder his relatives?

3. Why has the use of the insanity plea, in some states, increased significantly in recent years?

4. How can hardcore criminals adjudicated NGRI be characterized according to the study?

5. What did Trapnell confess to in a lengthy taped interview with a magazine writer?

6. What sentence did Trapnell finally get?

Task 5. Agree or disagree with the following statements. Agreement or disagreement should be followed by some comment

1. Psychi­atrists and state-court judges never make mistakes.

2. George Fitzsimmons con­vinced psychiatrists that he was no longer dangerous.

3. He told psychiatrists he loved his aunt and uncle "like my own mother and father."

4. Robert E. Miller wound­ed a lot of tourists in an unprovoked snip­er attack.

5. Defendants sent to mental institutions are rarely released earlier than those sent to prison.

6. Garrett Trapnell was arrested at age 20 for armed robbery.

7. Trapnell went to Hospital Center with a diagnosis of “scarlet fever”.

Task 6. Ask the questions to which the following statements are the answers:

1. George Fitzsimmons was adjudged NGRI in the murder of his parents.

2. He stabbed them to death.

3. He was placed on leave and soon returned to the same area.

4. He picked off seven people in the teeming tourist crowds.

5. Some defendants have learned to feign insanity.

6. Hinckley is being held at Washington's St. Elizabeth's Hospital.

7. Trapnell bamboozled more than a dozen psychiatrists into confirming his first diagnosis.

8. He skyjacked an airliner.

9. At the trial, the prosecutor played his taped magazine interview.

Task 7. Explain in English what the words and word combinations mean:

Criminally insane NGRI acquittees, sensational crimes, ex-mental inmates, beneficiary of life insurance, a high-powered rifle, insanity plea, dimin­ished capacity, to feign insanity, manipulative individuals, to skyjack an airliner, a license

.

Task 8. Practice the speech patterns given below. Make up two sentences of your own on each pattern

1. Little wonder that psychi­atrists and state-court judges now generally feel pressured to get the criminally insane NGRI acquittees back onto the streets. No wonder he knows so much; he has been in the line of duty for over ten years.

2. I could go out and shoot ten people; in six months I'd be free. We could make an appointment for Monday; my schedule is not very busy that day.

3. Only after he skyjacked an airliner was he convicted on criminal charges and sentenced to life in prison. Not only are we unable to protect huge numbers of citizens against crime in the first place, but we can’t instill confidence in them. No longer would the jury focus upon largely unanswer­able psychiatric questions. Only then did investigators find that, in both instances, he had had himself named beneficiary of his victims’ life insurance.

4. Since defendants sent to mental institutions are usu­ally released earlier than those sent to prison, some defendants have learned to feign insanity. Since they are cer­tain to lose their license, people do not drink and drive.

5. A study at Washington's St. Elizabeth's Hospital — the very facility where Hinckley is being held concluded that of over 1oo hardcore criminals adjudicated NGRI all were "highly clever, manipulative individuals — not insane at all." We met that very day the crime was committed. The witness told his story from the very beginning twice.

Task 9. Make the summary of the text. Use the key words and word combinations

Text 3

Task 1. Answer the questions:

1. Why are psychiatrists invited to testify in court?

2. Do you believe in insanity defense?

3. Isn’t it dangerous to release NGRI acquittees?

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

In virtually every celebrated trial involving the insanity defense, psy­chiatrists march in to support oppo­site conclusions. While 18 of the 41 witnesses in the Hinckley trial were physicians, their testimony con­sumed nearly two-thirds of the tri­al; they ruminated on everything from brain shrinkage to the narcissistic personality, from delusions of grandeur to Hinckley's relations with parents and women.

The Hinckley verdict only under­scores the necessity of eliminating the traditional insanity defense. Montana and Idaho have already done so; they confine psychiatrists to testifying whether a defendant was capable of the premeditation required to commit most crimes. Eight states, while retaining the NGRI verdict, allow as an alterna­tive a "guilty but mentally ill" ver­dict, thus emphasizing to jurors that mental illness does not auto­matically excuse a defendant, as some Hinckley jurors apparently believed. Defendants so convicted may receive treatment, but serve out their sentences even if pro­nounced cured.

Long before the Hinckley case, I introduced a bill that would virtu­ally end the insanity defense in federal criminal trials. This bill re­sembles the Montana and Idaho laws; other states should follow their lead. No longer would the jury focus upon largely unanswer­able psychiatric questions: Did the defendant appreciate right from wrong? Did he suffer from some irresistible impulse?

Instead, the jury would focus on this question: Did the defendant possess the requisite state of mind for the charged offense? If he knew what he was doing, he would be found guilty.

Under my legislation, a defend­ant would be found not guilty due to insanity only if his mental problems kept him from knowing what he did. Even then it would confine him to a treatment facility until he could convince a judge " by a pre­ponderance of evidence" that he was no longer a significant risk to society. In many states, mental-hos­pital staffs can release NGRI acquittees; they should be required to persuade a judge that the individ­ual in question is a reasonable risk."

The truly insane criminal is extraordinarily rare. "The classic law-school case of the person who squeezes his wife's throat thinking it was a lemon does not exist in my experience," says University of North Carolina professor of law and psychiatry Seymour Halleck.

If Congress and the states adopt reform bills such as mine, which is supported by Republicans and Democrats, they will protect us from terrible travesties of justice. No longer will highly paid lawyers and batteries of psychiatric witness­es enable the guiltyto evade respon­sibility for their crimes.

Vocabulary notes

Celebrated	знаменитый, прославленный
to ruminate	размышлять
to con­sume	занимать
brain shrinkage	уменьшение мозга
delusions of grandeur	мания величия
to under­score	недооценивать
to eliminate	устранять, исключать
premeditation	умысел, преднамеренность
to follow lead	следовать чьему-либо примеру
requisite	необходимый, требуемый
pre­ponderance of evidence	перевес, превосходство доказательств
to squeeze	сжимать

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. Why is the Hinckley trial so important?

2. What does a "guilty but mentally ill" ver­dict mean?

3. What question should the jury focus on in the author’s opinion?

4. In what case would a defend­ant be found not guilty due to insanity?

5. What is the purpose of the new legislation on the insanity defense?

Task 5. Read the statements. Agree or disagree with them. Agreement or disagreement should be followed by some comment

1. In virtually every trial involving the insanity defense, psy­chiatrists march in to support oppo­site conclusions.

2. The Hinckley verdict only under­scores the necessity of preserving the traditional insanity defense.

3. Ten states, while retaining the NGRI verdict, allow as an alterna­tive a "guilty but mentally ill" ver­dict.

4. I introduced a bill that would undermine the insanity defense in federal criminal trials.

5. Mental-hospital staffs can’t release NGRI acquittees.

6. The truly insane criminal is extraordinarily rare.

7. Traditional bills will protect Americans from terrible travesties of justice.

Task 6. Explain in English what the words and word combinations mean:

Celebrated trial, narcissistic personality, delusions of grandeur, premeditation, follow their lead, irresistible impulse, a reasonable risk, travesties of justice, to evade respon­sibility

Task 8. Practice the speech patterns given below. Make up two sentences of your own on each pattern

1. In virtually every celebrated trial involving the insanity defense, psy­chiatrists march in to support oppo­site conclusions. A defendant was capable of the premeditation required to commit most crimes. Did the defendant possess the requisite state of mind for the charged offense?

2. If he knew what he was doing, he would be found guilty. A defend­ant would be found not guilty due to insanity only if his mental problems kept him from knowing what he did.

3. If Congress and the states adopt reform bills such as mine, which is supported by Republicans and Democrats, they will protect us from terrible travesties of justice. And if a patient doesn't like his medication, he may even go to federal court before he is compelled to take it.

4. No longer will highly paid lawyers and batteries of psychiatric witnesses enable the guilty to evade responsibility for their crimes. In the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king. We owe respect to the dead; to the living we owe only truth.(Voltaire)

Task 9. Make the summary of the text. Use the key words and word combinations

UNIT 2 Rendering

Text 1

Task 1.Read the text. Make sure you know all the words in bold type.

Render the text into English.

Как закон должен обходиться с человеком, страдающим психическими расстройствами и совершившим уголовное преступление? Следует ли считать людей, чьи умственные способности нарушены, ответственными за свои действия? Эти вопросы волнуют представителей социальных наук, юристов и тех, кто работает с нарушителями закона. На протяжении веков важной частью западного закона считалось представление, что цивилизованное общество не должно наказывать человека, который психически не способен контролировать свое поведение. В 1724 году в Англии суд постановил, что человек не ответственен за свое деяние, если «он не более чем... дикий зверь знал, что делает». Однако современные стандарты юридической ответственности были основаны на решении по МакНатен от 1843 года. Шотландец МакНатен страдал бредовым убеждением, что его преследует английский премьер-министр сэр Роберт Пил. Пытаясь убить Пила, он по ошибке застрелил его секретаря. Всех участвовавших в судебном заседании бессмысленная и бессвязная речь МакНатена убедила в том, что он безумен. Его сочли не несущим ответственности по причине безумия и направили в психиатрическую больницу, где он оставался до своей смерти. Но королеве Виктории вердикт не понравился — очевидно, она предчувствовала, что к политическим убийствам нельзя относиться легкомысленно, — и призвала Палату лордов пересмотреть это решение. Решение было поддержано, и правила юридического определения безумия были письменно зафиксированы. Правило МакНатена утверждает, что подсудимый может быть признан невиновным по причине безумия, только если он в момент своего деяния находился в столь сильном помешательстве, что не знал, что делает, или знал, что делает, но не понимал, что это неправильно. Правило МакНатена было принято в США, и различие между знанием, что правильно и что неправильно, стало основой большинства решений о неприменимости юридической ответственности более чем на столетие. Некоторые штаты внесли в свои законы доктрину «непреодолимого импульса»,(The Irresistible Impulse ) которая признает, что некоторые психически больные индивиды могут верно отвечать, когда их спрашивают, является ли определенное действие морально допустимым или недопустимым, но могут быть не способны контролировать свое поведение.

Text 2

Task 1.Read the text. Make sure you know all the words in bold type.

Render the text into English.

Проблема юридической ответственности в случае индивидов с психическими нарушениями стала темой все больших споров после случая Джона Хинкли-младшего, оправданного по причине безумия, за попытку убийства президента Рейгана в 1981 году. Многие американцы были оскорблены этим вердиктом и чувствовали, что защита под прикрытием безумия стала юридической лазейкой, позволившей слишком многим виновным остаться на свободе. В ответ на это Конгресс принял Закон о Реформе защиты на основании безумия (Insanity Defense Reform Act, 1984), содержащий ряд положений, затрудняющих освобождение подсудимого от юридической ответственности. Резюмируя обзор приведенных «психиатрических» защит, допускаемых судами США на стадии установления вины, следует отметить, что защита на основании тяжелого психического расстройства (защита на основании невменяемости), являясь самой старой, по-прежнему остается наиболее привлекающей внимание. Происходит это не потому, что в Америке защита на основании невменяемости часто используется (в действительности она поднимается обвиняемым очень редко и еще реже бывает успешной), но из-за того, что случаи, в которых она используется (а это, главным образом, убийства при отягчающих обстоятельствах) подробно обсуждаются в mass media и получают большой общественный резонанс. Все штаты позволяют немедленное недобровольное помещение в психиатрический стационар для лечения признанных NGRI. Верховный Суд США в деле Johnes v. United States (1983) указал, что вердикт: «Не виновен по причине невменяемости» устанавливает 2 факта: (1) подсудимый совершил действие, являющееся уголовно наказуемым и (2) он совершил это действие по причине психической болезни. Конгресс установил, что эти данные образуют достаточную основу для госпитализации освобожденного от наказания по причине невменяемости как опасного и психически больного.

Text 3

Task 1.Read the text. Make sure you know all the words in bold type.

Render the text into English.

Еще одной попыткой внести ясность в юридическую защиту на основе невменяемости является вердикт типа «виновен, но психически болен». Предложенный первоначально в штате Мичиган, он был принят в 11 штатах (в некоторых из этих штатов он заменяет вердикт невиновности на основании невменяемости, в других является дополнительным вариантом). В этих штатах обвиняемый, заявляющий о своей невменяемости, может быть признан: (1) не виновным, (2) виновным, (3) невменяемым, (4) виновным, но психически больным.

В общем, закон разрешает признать человека виновным, но психически больным, если у подсудимого было обнаружено существенное нарушение мышления или настроения, он страдал им в момент совершения преступления, и оно значительно нарушило его рассудок, поведение, способность узнавать реальность или способность справляться с обычными требованиями жизни. Действие вердикта «виновен, но психически болен», однако, не достигает того же, что действие вердикта о юридической невменяемости. Вердикт «виновен, но психически болен» позволяет судьям осудить человека, которого они сочтут опасным, и одновременно стремится гарантировать предоставление ему психотерапевтического лечения. Такой человек может проходить лечение в тюрьме или сначала пройти лечение в психиатрической клинике, а затем вернуться в тюрьму, когда его сочтут пригодным к отбытию наказания. Остается проблема с тем, будет ли лечение в любом из этих мест достаточным для реабилитации этого человека.

Опасения публики, что защита на основе невменяемости может стать удобной лазейкой в уголовном законодательстве, по большей части беспочвенны. Эта защита редко применяется, а реальные случаи оправдания по причине невменяемости даже еще реже. Судьи не склонны считать, что люди не несут моральной ответственности за свои действия, и адвокаты, зная, что довод невменяемости, скорее, будет отклонен, прибегают к нему только как к крайнему средству. Менее 1% подсудимых, обвинявшихся в серьезных преступлениях, были сочтены невиновными на основании невменяемости.

UNIT 3 Discussion Points

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

Insanity is easily feigned

Only clever and manipulative criminals abuse insanity defense

The truly insane criminal is extraordinarily rare

Insanity defense is a way to evade respon­sibility for one’s crime

Task 2. Give a short newspaper review on psychiatric blunders in diagnozing insanity. 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 of insanity defense problems of today. You may speak about abuse, psychiatric mistakes, travesties of justice, manipulative criminals, incompetent judges, corrupted lawyers and the like. One of the students is supposed to introduce a subject of mutual interest, and the other student disagrees or agrees with his partner’s point of view.

Task 4. Speak on the topic: “Schizophrenia di­agnosis is a license to kill 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.

Mrs. Jones was an outspoken high-school English teacher. During a private meeting with the principal over school poli­cies, she lost her temper and called him several names in a loud voice.

The next day the principal fired her. She filed a lawsuit in federal court, claiming the school violated her right of free speech. "A public employee cannot be fired for ex­pressing her views," Mrs. Jones's lawyer told the judge.

The school-board attorney said the suit should be dismissed. "The right of free speech applies only in public places, not in private meetings," he said. "Besides, she deserved to be fired for being disre­spectful to her boss."

Should Mrs. Jones get her job back?

CHAPTER 8: Why Do Judges Keep Letting Him Off?”

UNIT 1. Giving the summary of the text

Text 1

Task 1. Answer the questions:

1. What is your attitude to the problem of driving while under the influence of alcohol?

2. Is driving while under the influence of alcohol a serious problem in this country?

3. What punishment should be applied to persons who drive under the influence of alcohol?

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)

On the day David Gunderman was born — January 18, 1978 — William Richard Rowan, age 49, was finishing out probation on a hit-and-run conviction (his second) and awaiting sentencing on a charge of driving while under the influence of alcohol ( his third). He was allowed to plead guilty to reckless driving.

A few months after David's first birthday, Rowan was arrested in Anaheim, Calif., and again pleaded guilty to driving while under the influence of alcohol.

Just after David's second birthday, Rowan was arrested in Santa Ana, Calif., twice in five weeks for driving while under the influence of alcohol and pleaded guilty in both cases. For the fourth time he was sent to an alcohol-counselingprogram. Two months later he was again arrested in Santa Ana when he was involved in a hit-and-run accident and refused to take an alcohol test. The charges were dismissed when the witness couldn't be located.

Less than a month after David's third birthday, Rowan began a 45-day jail sentence because his refusal to take a chemical test had violated his probation. His driver's license, suspended several times before, was revoked through 1983.

But 61 days alter David's fourth birthday, on a Saturday afternoon last March, Rowan drove away from a downtown bar in Santa Ana, where, according to police, he had been drinking. By then he had eight convictions for reckless driv­ing, hit-and-run and driving while under the influence of alcohol, plus three probation violations.

Along the route was David Gunderman and his friend Peter Kroll, also four. They were in their Santa Ana neighborhood, waiting, as they did every Saturday afternoon, for the ice-cream man. At their first sight of the truck, they would run home, their voices filled with laughter, for their ice-cream mon­ey. Peter was on his way to join David at the corner on 4th Street when the accident occurred.

Vocabulary notes

Reckless неосторожный

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 events took place on January 18, 1978?

2. What happened to Rowan after David's first birthday?

3. How many times was he sent to an alcohol-counseling program?

4. Why did Rowan get a 45-day jail sentence less than a month after David's third birthday?

5. What convictions did Rowan have on the moment the accident occurred?

Task 5. Ask questions to which the following statements are the answers:

1. He was allowed to plead guilty to reckless driving.

2. Just after David's second birthday, Rowan was arrested in Santa Ana, Calif.

3. Two months later he was again arrested in Santa Ana.

4. He was involved in a hit-and-run accident.

5. The charges were dismissed when the witness couldn't be located.

6. His driver's license was revoked through 1983.

7. They were waiting for the ice-cream man.

8. His friend Peter Kroll was also four.

Task 6. Explain in English what the words and word combinations mea. Use them in your own sentences

Hit-and-run, to take a test, driver's license, to suspend, downtown, conviction, the route, neighborhood, the accident, to occur, probation, to dismiss the charges

Task 7. Practice the speech patterns given below. Make up two sentences of your own on each pattern

1. Rowan was arrested in Anaheim, Calif., and again pleaded guilty to driving while under the influence of alcohol. He confessed to smuggling a few grams of cocaine.

2. Rowan was arrested in Santa Ana, Calif., twice in five weeks for driving while under the influence of alcohol. He was punished twice for violating the same rule.

3. Peter was on his way to join David at the corner on 4th Street when the accident occurred. Don’t forget to post the letter on the way to the office.

4. His driver's license, suspended several times before, was revoked through 1983. A chemical test showed that Rowan had a 0.27-percent blood-alcohol level, almost three times the lev­el specified by California law for presumption of intoxication.

5. At their first sight of the truck, they would run home, their voices filled with laughter, for their ice-cream mon­ey. All formalities completed, they could relax and have lunch at last.

6. On a Saturday afternoon last March, Rowan drove away from a downtown bar in Santa Ana, where, according to police, he had been drinking. The police said David had been obeying t he rule.

Task 8. Make the summary of the text. Use the key words and word combinations

Text 2

Task 1. Answer the questions:

· Why are drunk drivers so dangerous?

· Do you know how many people are killed on the roads by drunk drivers?

· What is the punishment for the driver who hits a pedestrian?

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)

"We always told him not to get any closer to the curb than this," Richard Gunderman, David's step­father, said later, pointing to a spot eight feet from the corner. The police said David had been obeying the rule.

Kelly Jean Webb was driving down Grand Avenue when a 1972Chevrolet edged into her lane and bumped her car. She glanced at the driver; he was hunched low and leaning his head back against the seat.

"He was weaving a lot," Webb said. "All of a sudden he sped up. I was going about 20 or 25, and he was just flying. I heard a screech, like metal on metal. He went up on the curb. I heard a thump. Then he went back into the street, then up on the opposite curb. I knew he hit something, but I didn't know what."

Webb found out as soon as she got out of the car. What she saw was a little boy — David. A piece of his forehead had been torn off. His glasses, which had been strapped on, were lying across the street.

David's mother, Suzanne, was on the scene within seconds. "One look and you could tell," she said. "He wasn't dead, but he had no chance of living."

Meanwhile, two neighbors ran to the car to help anyone inside. They saw William Rowan move to the passenger side of the car and try to kick open the door. The door was jammed fast against the curb, so Rowan finally stopped trying. Witnesses said he then sat back and lit a cigar.

When the police arrived, Rowan denied being the driver. On the strength of statements by three wit­nesses, however, he was arrested. A chemical test showed that Rowan had a 0.27-percent blood-alcohol level, almost three times the lev­el specified by California law for presumption of intoxication. He was booked into the Orange County jail and r eleased a day later on $5000 bail.

The Gundermans wanted Row­an to pay. "I want this guy to get what's coming to him," said Richard Gunderman, who had filed to adopt his wife's son by a previous marriage.

"Why do judges keep letting him off?" Suzanne Gunderman asked. "They have to make him think about what he did."

Vocabulary notes

the curb	бордюрный камень, край тротуара
to edge	продвигаться, проскользнуть
to hunch	горбиться, сутулиться
to strap	закреплять ремешком

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 rule had David been obeying?

2. How did the witness describe the accident?

3. What did Rowan do after hitting the boy?

4. What did the chemical test show?

5. What happened to Rowan after the accident?

Task 5. Read the statements. Agree or disagree with them. Agreement or disagreement should be followed by some comment

1. David was playing on the road when the accident occurred.

2. David was a disobedient kid.

3. Jean car was damaged by Rowan’ car.

4. Rowan was driving about 20 or 25 mph.

5. Webb saw him hit the boy.

6. David's mother found the boy dead.

7. Rowan was blocked in his car.

8. A chemical test showed that Rowan was sober.

Task 6. Ask questions to which the following statements are the answers:

1. His parents told him not to get close to the curb.

2. Richard Gunderman was David’s step­father.

3. The spot was eight feet from the corner.

4. The driver was hunched low and leaning his head back against the seat.

5. She heard a screech.

6. She saw a little boy.

7. Two neighbors ran to the car.

8. There were three wit­nesses.

9. Gunderman had filed to adopt his wife's son.

10. He was released on $5000 bail.

Task 7. Explain in English what the words and word combinations mean:

Step­father, to speed up, a thump, the scene, to kick open, fast, witness, the strength of statements, to book into, bail, to file, to adopt, to let sb off

Task 8. Practice the speech patterns given below. Make up two sentences of your own on each pattern

1. When the police arrived, Rowan denied being the driver. Rowan finally stopped trying. Why do judges keep letting him off? I enjoy playing computer games.

2. He wasn't dead, but he had no chance of living. You are running the risk of being caught on the border. He played with the idea of taking a trip to Australia. Punitive damages, which hold out the hope of striking it rich, should be abolished except in truly egregious cases.

3. The Gundermans wanted Row­an to pay. I want this guy to get what's coming to him. I don’t want him to sit as a juror in this case.

4. Kelly Jean Webb was driving down Grand Avenue when a 1972Chevrolet edged into her lane and bumped her car. I was going about 20 or 25, and he was just flying. She glanced at the driver; he was hunched low and leaning his head back against the seat.

5. What she saw was a little boy — David. What he did is hard to comprehend. What I was left with was a small sum of money. What it is getting is a great many drug-taking, drug-dealing, small-time thieves.

6. All of a sudden he sped up. All of a sudden she burst out laughing uncontrollably.

7. Rowan had a 0.27-percent blood-alcohol level, almost three times the lev­el specified by California law for presumption of intoxication. She raised the sum two times the sum needed.

Task 9. Make the summary of the text. Use the key words and word combinations

Text 3

Task 1. Answer the questions:

1. What routine do the courts treat drunk drivers to?

2. In what cases do people appeal court decisions?

3. If driving while under the influence of alcohol results in a death, what punishment should the person receive?

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)

Court records show that, with few exceptions, the courts had treated Rowan to the routine then in effect. The pattern was a fine, a few weekends in jail, alcohol counseling — in spite of his mounting list of convictions. Ironically, his stiffest jail sentence came not from a conviction for driving while under the influence of alcohol but from a probation violation.

But this time, in the Gunderman case, Rowan faced the new drunk-drivinglaw that went into effect in California this year. He was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol resulting in a death, driving with a 10-percent or more blood-alcohol level, vehic­ular manslaughter and driving without a valid license. Under a recent California Supreme Court decision, Rowan could also have been charged with second-degree murder if his actions had dis­played willful disregard for hu­man life and implied malice had been shown. A conviction could have earned him a 15-years-to-life sentence.

Yet, despite the strength of evi­dence against Rowan, the Orange County district attorneys office decided not to seek a murder com­plaint. To obtain a murder convic­tion, you must prove that the driving itself was so reckless that it amounted to "implied malice," the prosecutor said, and added, "Just being intoxi­cated isn't enough." On June 8, William Richard Rowan pleaded guilty to the major charges and was sentenced to three years in prison. He will be eligible for parole in June 1984, although he faces two more years for probation violations. Rowan is appealing these additional years.

The Gundermans still say that their son was murdered.

Дата добавления: 2015-10-26