Мистецтво

Дата добавления: 2015-09-15; просмотров: 554

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,

50 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 followingquestions.

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?

Nine Years for Hit-and-Run Killer

Ian Carr, a banned driver and career criminal with 89 previous convictions, who killed a child in a hit-and-run crash on New Year’s Eve, was yesterday jailed for nine and a half years.

His sentencing prompted calls for review of the penalties imposed on repeat offenders and those found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving.

Carr, 27, was at the wheel of a stolen Vauxhall Astra when it raced through red lights and smashed into a Citroen Saxo hatchback, killing six-year-old Rebecca Sawyer and leaving her 18-month-old sister Kirsty critically injured.

Kirsty, who was flung out of the vehicle by the impact, is still recovering at hospital. The girls’ father, Steven, 33, was also badly hurt.

The crash occurred near the family home in Ashington. Yesterday Mr Sawyer and his wife, Sharon, sat in silence, just 15 feet from the dock, as Carr was sentenced. He had been convicted on six counts, including driving while disqualified, failing to stop at the scene of an accident, taking a vehicle without consent and causing death by dangerous driving. He could not be charged with murder because there was no evidence of premeditation.

Carr, from Ashington, had been released from prison after serving time for burglary only a few months before the crash. During the trial it emerged that he had 89 previous convictions, some for joyriding, and had appeared in court 25 times.

Described as a career criminal, Carr had previously been banned from driving for life by a Scottish court and had been locked up as a 15-year-old for causing death by reckless driving. During the hearing yesterday he remained impassive.

Speaking outside court, Mr Sawyer said: “Me, Sharon, and all our family are now just pleased that this is over and we can try, as hard as it is without Rebecca, to rebuild our lives for Kirsty’s sake. Nothing but a life sentence will stop Ian Carr from getting behind the wheel of a car in future, and no doubt he will. It is too late for my daughter now, but he will do this again unless he is somehow stopped. Personally, I would cut the legs off such people, but he should have got a life sentence if it had been possible. It should be a life for a life.”

After the trial, Inspector Paul Gilroy of Northumbria police revealed Carr had offered no apology for his behaviour.

“He is a menace to the motoring public at large, and the only time he will cease to be that is when he is serving a custodial sentence,” Mr Gilroy said.

Chief Superintendent Bob Pattison said: “Dennis Murphy (the Labour MP) was so concerned about this incident that he contacted the home secretary to discuss tightening up the laws on repeat offenders, and whether the charges that can be levied for motoring offences when death is involved should be reviewed.” He added: “Mr Murphy wants to work with Northumbria police to examine similar cases before making recommendations to the home secretary.”

(From ‘The Guardian’, abridged)

Problem solving.

Analyze the facts given in both articles very carefully and prepare a short speech as if you were taking part in the work of a board reviewing the British and American laws on repeat offenders.

First act as if you were in favour of tightening up the laws and then as if you were against it. You must be prepared to support both points of view. While preparing the speech think over the following points.

1. What results can you possibly achieve?

2. Think what arguments would best suit your purpose, and what facts you had better avoid.

3. Think what facts and arguments could be cited against your point of view and get ready to counter them.

4. Revise task 19, Unit 4 and arrange your arguments in the way that would lead your listeners to the conclusion you need.

5. Think how you could present your speech in the form of questions and answers.

Vocabulary 2