Discussion. 1. What do you personally think of jury courts?

1. What do you personally think of jury courts? Do you think they can ensure justice in court rulings?

2. Why is there an accepted rule that jurors cannot be professional lawyers? Do you agree with it?

3. Do you think jurors should be given a right to vote according to their conscience even if it goes against the evidence?

4. Do you think it’s possible to prevent bias in jury courts?

Professional Reading

 

Read Article 1 very carefully. You must achieve complete understanding of the text, so use a dictionary by all means. While reading, find the following words and word combinations in the text and learn their meaning. Use these words in the discussion of the problem.

A discrepancy between …, a compulsory sentence, a felony, a repeat offender, to be on parole, (a) harsh (law), a misdemeanour, a petty crime, a defendant, to hear an appeal, a criminal record.

 

Article 1

A Handful of Tapes,

Years

The three-strikes law

The crimes were almost farcically inept. The goods – video cassettes in one case, three golf clubs in the other – were stuffed down the shoplifters’ trousers. Both men were caught by shop assistants as soon as they hobbled outside. The sentences they received, however, were Draconian: 50-years-to-life for Leandro Andrade, the video thief, and 25-to-life for Gary Ewin, the golfer. The discrepancy between crimes and punishments have drawn the attention of the Supreme Court, which is going to look at their cases.

The men’s sentences were passed under California’s “three-strikes” law, which imposes a compulsory sentence of 25-years-to-life for a third conviction for a felony. The law was the fruit of a 1994 ballot initiative inspired, in part, by the murder of a girl by a repeat-offender who was on parole. Twenty four other states and the federal government have such laws, but California’s is the harshest and by far the most often used. Currently, more than 7,000 offenders are in jail for committing a third strike. The Supreme Court will now consider whether the men’s sentences violate the constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual” punishment.

Two oddities of Californian law have contributed to the severity of Mr Andrade’s treatment. The first is that its three-strikes law is not limited to violent crimes. Property felonies, such as burglary, can count as strikes. The second is a separate law that upgrades misdemeanors – petty crimes that would not normally count as a strike – into felonies if the defendant has a record of property convictions.

This leads to anomalies. The two thefts of videotapes, worth a total of $154.53, for which Mr Andrade earned his double third-strike sentence, counted as strikes only because he had two earlier convictions for burglaries that bumped them up from misdemeanors to felonies. If his earlier crimes had been violent but had not involved theft of property, his video thefts would have been treated as misdemeanors. Nor would he have been clobbered for three strikes if he had pinched the videos first, and done his burglaries later.

The Supreme Court must decide whether it agrees with the Ninth Circuit court in San Francisco, which heard Mr Andrade’s appeal, that his sentence was “grossly disproportionate” to his crime. Although it will rule only on the peculiarities of California’s law, and not on three-strikes law in general, the court’s decision will be watched by politicians. The effect of three-strikes laws is hard to gauge, but one California study found that only about 10% of crimes were committed by offenders eligible for the tougher sentences. Those offenders with a criminal record behind them, were also older than average, so the chief effect of three-strikes has been to make the jail population older and to keep offenders in jail – with all the attendant expense – for much longer, well past their years of peak criminal activity.

Three-strikes is only one of a range of laws, introduced by legislators wishing to look tough on crime, that reduce judges’ discretion in sentencing. The court has a chance in this case to reclaim judicial authority. But the present justices have been reluctant, so far, to interfere with the power of states to set punishments.

(From ‘The Economist’)

Find the given quotations in the text and answer the following questions.

1. “The sentences they received, however, were Draconian: 50-years-to-life for Leandro Andrade …” What do you understand by it?

2. Have a good look at passage 3 and explain the peculiarities of the three-strikes law in California. Is the Californian law different from the three-strikes laws in other states?

3. “If his earlier crimes had been violent but had not involved thefts of property, his video thefts would have been treated as misdemeanors. Nor would he have been clobbered for three strikes if he had pinched the videos first, and done his burglaries later.”

Explain how the three-strikes law worked in this particular case.

4. “Three-strikes is only one of a range of laws … that reduce the judges’ discretion in sentencing.” What do you understand by it?

 

Read Article 2 carefully and find answers to the following questions. While reading, find the following words and word combinations in the text and learn their meaning. Use these words in the discussion of the problem.

 

A hit-and-run crash, to be convicted on (six) counts, premeditation, to serve time for (burglary), joyriding, to cause death, reckless driving, a motoring offence.

 

1. For what crime was Ian Carr jailed for nine and a half years?

2. Why couldn’t he be charged with murder?

3. Why was Carr described as a career criminal?

4. Is there any hint in the article that Carr will ever repent? Is there any hint of the opposite?

5. Will British laws on repeat offenders be tightened up? What was the state of affairs with this problem for the moment of the publication of the article?