Английский язык для юристов

Учебное пособие для аспирантов

Ответственный редактор
доцент Е. В. Ратникова

ebooks@prospekt.org

Информация о книге

УДК 811.111(075.8)

ББК 81.2Англ-923

А64

Авторы:

Аганина Т. А. — главы II, IV;

Ильина Н. Ю. — главы IX, X;

Киселева Л. А. — главы III, VIII;

Ратникова Е. В. — главы V, VI;

Ченцова Н. Б. — главы I, VII;

Щербакова Т. Н. — глава XI.

Ответственный редактор доцент кафедры английского языка № 2 Е. В. Ратникова.

Учебное пособие предназначено для аспирантов юридических специальностей всех форм обучения по направлению подготовки 40.06.01 «Юриспруденция» (уровень подготовки кадров высшей квалификации) в рамках программы дисциплины «Иностранный язык», разработанной на основании ФГОС ВО.

Цель книги — совершенствование профессионально-ориентированной иноязычной компетенции аспирантов юридического профиля в сфере научно-исследовательской и педагогической деятельности.

УДК 811.111(075.8)

ББК 81.2Англ-923

© Коллектив авторов, 2019

© ООО «Проспект», 2019

Предисловие

Настоящее учебное пособие предназначено для аспирантов юридического профиля очной и заочной форм обучения, изучающих учебную дисциплину «Иностранный язык». Учебное пособие подготовлено профессорско-преподавательским коллективом кафедры английского языка № 2 Московского государственного юридического университета имени О. Е. Кутафина (МГЮА) в соответствии с рабочей программой дисциплины «Иностранный язык» и ФГОС ВО по направлению подготовки 40.06.01 «Юриспруденция» (уровень подготовки кадров высшей квалификации).

Цель данного учебного пособия — совершенствование навыков и умений письменного и устного общения аспирантов юридического профиля в сфере профессиональной, педагогической и научно-исследовательской деятельности. Для достижения этой цели необходимо формировать у аспирантов универсальные компетенции, которые выражаются в способности и готовности участвовать в работе российских и международных исследовательских коллективов по решению научных и научно-образовательных задач, а также в готовности использовать современные методы и технологии научной коммуникации на иностранном языке.

Для реализации указанной цели необходимо обеспечить решение следующих задач обучения: освоение аспирантами профессионально ориентированного языкового материала, направленного на совершенствование лингвистических, социолингвистических, культурологических, дискурсивных знаний, а также дальнейшее расширение словарного запаса за счет общегуманитарной, общенаучной, правовой и терминологической лексики; совершенствование полученных на предыдущих образовательных уровнях навыков просмотрового, ознакомительного, поискового и изучающего видов чтения для работы с оригинальной монографической и периодической литературой на иностранном языке по тематике узкой специальности аспирантов; формирование навыков монологической и диалогической речи, а также навыков аудирования, направленных на понимание информации и выражение различных коммуникативных намерений, характерных для научно-исследовательской и педагогической деятельности аспиранта; формирование высокоорганизованных навыков трансформации профессионально ориентированной научной информации на иностранном языке в различные виды документации посредством реферирования и аннотирования; совершенствование навыков письма на иностранном языке в целях эффективного ведения научной переписки профессионального характера, написания научных статей, изложения прочитанного в форме резюме, написания доклада на иностранном языке по тематике научного исследования аспиранта; формирование навыков перевода с иностранного языка на русский, направленных на достижение смысловой эквивалентности и лингвистической адекватности при получении информации научного и профессионального характера.

Данное учебное пособие нацелено на эффективное изучение дисциплины «Иностранный язык», которая рассматривается как обязательный компонент профессиональной подготовки аспиранта. Учебное пособие состоит из 11 тематических разделов, содержание которых охватывает основные аспекты деятельности юриста в сфере профессиональной коммуникации. Для обеспечения единства образовательного пространства тематика унифицирована для всех форм обучения аспирантов.

Каждый тематический раздел учебного пособия включает профессионально ориентированные аутентичные материалы на иностранном языке по специальности и направленности диссертационного исследования, которые, в зависимости от коммуникативной задачи, способствуют совершенствованию уверенных навыков в основных видах чтения, письма, говорения, аудирования и перевода с иностранного языка на русский, формируют умение вычленять опорные смысловые блоки в читаемом и определять в прочитанном тексте структурно-семантическое ядро. В каждом тематическом разделе содержатся лексико-грамматические комментарии и упражнения, способствующие дальнейшему совершенствованию навыков устной и письменной коммуникации. Представленные упражнения помогают овладеть основными переводческими приемами, трансформациями, приемами компрессии, генерализации и дескриптивной передачи смыслов.

Представленные в учебном пособии лексико-грамматические задания направлены на выполнение перевода на русский язык аутентичного текстового материала профессиональной направленности, на реферирование и аннотирование научной информации на иностранном языке по тематике диссертационного исследования, на составление двуязычного глоссария по тематике научного исследования, на подготовку устных сообщений в реферативном формате. Перечисленные задания учебного пособия способствуют выработке у аспирантов уверенных навыков для осуществления иноязычной речевой деятельности в научной профессионально ориентированной коммуникативной сфере общения с учетом отраслевой специализации юриспруденции.

Авторы учебного пособия руководствовались нормами орфографии и пунктуации, зафиксированными в современных лексикографических источниках британского и американского вариантов английского языка.

Авторы выражают благодарность старшему преподавателю кафедры английского языка № 2 О. А. Миненко за обеспечение технической подготовки учебного пособия к изданию.

UNIT 1. Constitutional Law

Forms of Government. Democracy

Democracy derives its superiority from two sources.

Firstly, a democratic regime is legitimate. In a real democracy, the form of the regime is, by definition, sought after by the people. It is logical that such a regime can rely on more internal support than a dictator.

Secondly, a democracy is more productive. In an authoritarian regime, the ideas of the majority of citizens have little opportunity to influence decision-making. In a democracy, there is a much broader base of ideas.

Moreover, the selection of ideas is more efficient in a democracy. Democracy is nothing more than the social processing of individual ideas. New ideas always originate with individuals, because only individuals can think. But the individual ideas have to be considered, weighed against each other and adapted to the conditions in society. People need each other to correct the imperfections in each other’s ideas. The heart of democracy is actually this process of the social shaping of perceptions, in which the idea or proposal of a single person, often already accepted by a smaller group (a political party, action group or pressure group), has its pros and cons weighed up by society as a whole. This perception-forming process leads to a choice. But the choice always has to be examined in historical context; today’s minority can be tomorrow’s majority. The actual decisions in relation to the stream of image forming are like the timpani beats within an entire symphony.

In the medium to long term, democratic decisions will be socially superior to dictatorial decisions. Morally dubious goals, which do not serve the communal interest, will by their very nature seek their way via concealed channels that are shielded from the light of open, democratic decision-making. Under democratic conditions, the best ideas will be filtered out, so to speak, because we are better at recognizing others’ weaknesses than our own. The process of selection that occurs along the path of democracy can feed into society that which is beneficial to it. This does not mean that the presence of democratic instruments necessarily guarantees the quality of the moral initiatives of individual members of society. We can only trust that such initiatives will emerge. But it does mean that morally worthy aspirations cannot materialize without democracy. Politics can never prescribe morality. But politics can create democratic instruments that allow the moral potential that is dormant in individuals to be freed and put to work for the benefit of society.

Evolving democracy

Democracy is never complete. The rise of democracy should be seen as an organic process. Democracy cannot stop developing and deepening, just as a person cannot stop breathing. A democratic system that remains static and unchanged will degenerate and become undemocratic. It is just such a process of ossification that causes society’s current malaise. We have to face up to the fact that democracy in our societies is in dire straights.

Our current, purely representative democracy is in fact the response to the aspirations of more than a century ago. This system was suited to that time, because the majority of people could find their political views and ideals reflected in a small number of clear-cut human and social beliefs, which were embodied in and represented by Christian, socialist or liberal groups, for example. That time is long past. People’s ideas and judgements have become more individualized.

The appropriate democratic form in this context is a parliamentary system complemented with the binding citizens’ initiative referendum (direct democracy), because such a system provides a direct link between individuals and the legislative and executive organs. The greater the degree to which citizens incline towards individual judgements, and political parties lose their monopoly as ideological rallying points, the higher will be the demand for tools of direct-democratic decision-making.

Indeed, a majority of people in Western countries want the referendum to be introduced. This fact alone should be decisive in also actually implementing it. Democracy literally means: ‘government by the people’ (Oxford English Dictionary). The first step towards authentic government by the people necessarily involves people, being able to determine themselves how this government by the people is designed and put into practice.

Nevertheless, we see that the majority of politicians argue against the referendum. It is striking that the higher the level of effective power they possess, the more vigorously do many politicians resist the referendum. In doing so, they actually adopt the same arguments that were previously used to oppose the workers’ and women’s right to vote. It can also be shown that these arguments have very little merit.

In fact, however, a glance at direct democracy in practice is sufficient to see that the objections are groundless. In Switzerland in particular, a very interesting — albeit by no means perfect — example of direct democracy has existed for more than a century. The Swiss can launch citizens’ legislative initiatives at all administrative levels. In certain instances, it is clear that the citizens are directly opposed to the preferences of the political and economic elite. In referendums on constitutional amendments and transferring sovereignty to international organisations, which are obligatory in Switzerland, the voters reject a quarter of the parliament’s proposals; when a citizens’ group collects signatures to force a referendum on ordinary laws, as many as half the legislative proposals are rejected. But the people have not used their democratic rights to turn Switzerland into an inhuman or authoritarian state! There is no death penalty in Switzerland and human rights are not threatened in that country. Moreover, Swiss citizens have no plans to surrender their superior democratic system. (The Swiss people’s dislike of the European Union is also associated with the Union’s undemocratic character.)

But direct democracy must not be idealized. It provides no solutions in itself. Direct democracy does however make available the essential mechanism for producing useful and useable solutions to modern problems. The introduction of direct democracy should not happen out of a mood of sudden euphoria, but in a spirit of ‘active and conscious readiness to wait’.

Moreover, one should not underestimate the invigorating impact that will immediately result from a radical choice for the restoration and deepening of democracy. The decision for more democracy is always also a decision for the right of the other to have a voice. It is a declaration of faith in the moral forces and capacities that are latent in one’s fellow citizens. In our societies, which are poisoned by mutual distrust, there is almost nothing else imaginable that can have such a healing effect. The commitment to more direct democracy is by definition a commitment to the other persons, to their freedom of speech, to their intrinsic dignity. People who are only interested in achieving their own goals have nothing to gain from democracy. They would do better to put all their energy into proclaiming and propagating their own individual point of view. Real democrats are interested in the individual points of view of others, because they know that people need each other to hone and sharpen their ideas and intuitions, to improve them and elaborate them. This social process of the forming, and shaping of opinions constitutes the real core of democratic life. The closer people are brought into contact with each other in a kind of federalism, the more easily and effectively can shared perceptions emerge. Direct democracy and federalism reinforce each other. Together they form a ‘strong democracy’ (Barber 1984) or ‘integrated democracy’.

Notes:

1. It is just such a process ... that causes … — именно такой процесс вызывает ...

2. The greater the degree ... the higher will be the demand — чем выше степень …, тем выше запрос на...

3. But it does mean … — но это точно означает …

Grammar points

Перевод эмфатических конструкций

Эмфатические конструкции выделяют тот или иной член предложения.

К ним относятся:

1. Усилительные слова или словосочетания:

as much (many) as …

The unemployment rate reached as much as 15 percent at the time.

Уровень безработицы в то время поднялся на целых 15%.

as such — как таковой

Democracy as such … — Демократия как таковая …

as early as

as early as in the end of WWII … — уже в конце Второй мировой войны …

alone

This fact alone … — Сам (по себе) этот факт …

very (перед существительным) — самый, тот самый

The very fact that … — Сам факт, что …

much

much later — гораздо (намного) позже

do

The problem does exist. Проблема все-таки существует.

2. It is … that (who) — усилительная конструкция

It is these characteristics that are important to us.

Для нас представляют важность именно эти характеристики.

3. Артикль (a, the)

It is just an option, not the option we should accept.

Это лишь один из вариантов, а вовсе не тот единственный, который нам следует принять.

The sooner you do it, the better.

Чем скорее вы сделаете это, тем лучше.

4. Обратный порядок слов после ряда наречий и союзов:

hardly …. when
no sooner … than
едва … как …
не успел … как …

not only … but …
не только … но и …

Only
только

never
никогда

neither
nor
и не; а также не

so
а также; и

Nowhere can this phenomenon be observed better than in this area of social life.
Нигде нельзя лучше наблюдать это явление, чем в этой сфере общественной жизни.

5. Двойное отрицание

The first progress was not made until the end of the year.

Первые успехи были достигнуты лишь в конце года.

Exercise 1. Translate the sentences paying attention to emphatic words, word combinations and constructions.

1. Direct democracy does however make available the essential mechanism for producing useful and usable solutions to modern problems.

2. It’s the citizens who are directly opposed to the preferences of the political and economic elite.

3. Only in 1870, after the Civil War, were people of color granted the constitutional right to vote.

4. But it does mean that morally worthy aspirations cannot materialize without democracy.

5. The closer people are brought into contact with each other in a kind of federalism, the more easily and effectively can shared perceptions emerge.

6. In a democracy, there is a much broader base of ideas.

7. It’s striking that the higher the level of effective power they possess, the more vigorously do many politicians resist the referendum.

8. Congress does have its own institutional rules, but they apply only to its members and committees.

9. These people do employ executive orders and directives in the course of their management responsibilities, but rarely, if ever, do they write rules of the type considered in the book.

10. The greater the degree to which citizens incline towards individual judgments, and political parties lose their monopoly as ideological rallying points, the higher will be the demand for tools of direct-democratic decision-making.

11. It’s just such a process of ossification that causes society’s current malaise.

12. It was not until mid — 90ies that some progress was observed.

13. Nor should there be distortion in social policies of the local governments.

14. This option is not improbable in the present situation.

15. No sooner the committee started operating than the first positive results could be seen.

16. Never was greater a surplus of the U.S. budget than in 1999.

17. When a citizens’ group collects signatures to force a referendum on ordinary laws, as many as half legislative proposals are rejected.

18. Democracy as such can longer be recognized in the Netherlands.

19. Morally dubious goals, which do not serve the communal interest, will by their very nature seek their way via concealed channels that are shielded from the light of open, democratic decision-making.

20. This fact alone should be decisive in also actually implementing it.

Essential vocabulary

Псевдоинтернациональные слова — это слова,

1) которые имеют сходные написание и произношение, но совершенно другое значение по сравнению с английским языком, например:

actual | действительный, фактический (а не актуальный)
accurate | точный (а не аккуратный)
data | данные (а не дата)
Dutch | голландский (а не датский)
familiar | известный, знакомый (а не фамильярный)
prospect | перспектива (а не проспект)

2) которые лишь в одном или двух значениях совпадают с русскими словами, например:

authority | власть (реже, авторитет)
activity | деятельность (реже, активность)
collect | взимать (а не только собирать, коллекционировать)
complex | сложный, запутанный (а не только комплексный)
control | управлять (а не только контролировать)
original | первоначальный, подлинный (а не только оригинальный)
object | цель, задача (а не только объект)
individual (a) | личный, характерный, особенный, отдельный, частный (а не только индивидуальный)
individual (n) | отдельное лицо, индивидуум, личность, физическое лицо
champion | борец, поборник, защитник (а не только чемпион)
convention | съезд (а не только конвенция)
position | должность (а не только позиция)
legal | правовой, юридический (а не только легальный)
interest | процент (в банке) (а не только интерес)
public | государственный (а не только публичный)
nation | страна, народ (реже — нация)
officer | чиновник, должностное лицо (а не только офицер)
realize | понимать, представлять себе (реже — реализовывать)

Exercise 2.

A. Translate the following word combinations.

1. banking officer

2. public debt

3. interest rate

4. convention of the Entrepreneurs Union

5. champion of peace

6. null document

7. legal matters

8. accurate data

9. title and position

10. human value

B. Translate the sentences paying attention to the words in bold type.

1. A democracy is more productive.

2. The selection of ideas is more efficient in a democracy.

3. Democracy is nothing more than the social processing of individual ideas.

4. New ideas always originate with individuals, because only individuals can think.

5. In the 19th century democracy was actually still only in its infancy.

6. But the choice always has to be examined in a historical context.

7. When a citizens’ group collects signatures.

8. The citizens or voters are weak players in the complex and utterly dense social network of political decisions in their country.

9. Daudt is seen as the Nestor of Dutch political science.

10. The fundamental rights are respected.

3) вводные слова и словосочетания:

Firstly | Во-первых,
Secondly | Во-вторых,
Actually | в действительности, на самом деле, фактически, даже, как ни странно
so to speak | так сказать
in fact | действительно, фактически
albeit | Хотя
by no means | отнюдь не, никоим образом
moreover | более того, кроме того (very formal and not common in spoken English; use «besides» or «also» instead)
indeed | действительно, в самом деле
nevertheless, however | тем не менее, однако
in certain instances | в определенных случаях
in particular | в частности, в особенности, особенно

Exercise 3. Find and translate the sentences with introductory word combinations in the text and translate them into Russian.

Exercise 4. Use the texts and your general knowledge of law to discuss the definitions of the following word combinations.

a) dictatorial government

b) authoritarian state

c) democratic state

d) direct democracy

e) representative democracy

f) authentic government

g) referendum

h) action group

i) pressure group

Exercise 5. Make a précis of the part headlined «Evolving democracy».

Exercise 6. Read and render the text.

Our Democracy Is a Nonsense

We are currently a long way from such an integrated democracy. Political decision-making generally takes place beyond the influence and even beyond the cognizance of the citizens. This applies to almost all European states.

Hans Herbert von Arnim is Professor of Public Law and Constitutional Theory at the University of Speyer in Germany. He has written several books on democracy and politics and has acquired a reputation for exposing the often sordid reality that lies behind the “pretty face of democracy„. In his book “Das System„ (The System; subtitle: ‘The Machinations of Power’), published in 2001, he lifted the lid on the German political system: “If representative democracy means government by the people and for the people (Abraham Lincoln), it quickly becomes apparent that in reality all is not well with the basic principles of what is supposed to be the most liberal democratic social system that has ever existed in Germany. The state and politics are on the whole in a condition that only professional optimists or hypocrites can claim is a result of the will of the people. Every German has the freedom to obey laws to which he has never given his assent; he can admire the majesty of a constitution to which he has never granted legitimacy; he is free to honor politicians whom no citizen has ever elected, and to provide for them lavishly — with his taxes, about the use of which he has never been consulted„. The political parties that take decisions in this system have become monolithic institutions, according to Von Arnim. The political identification and satisfaction of needs, which in a democracy should proceed from bottom to top — from the people to the parliament — is completely in the grip of the party leaders. Von Arnim also lays blame on the system of party funding, in which politicians can personally determine how much of the tax revenues their parties — private associations just like any other — can collect. According to Von Arnim, it is not surprising that politicians continue to ignore the ever-increasing clamor for reform of the political system, because otherwise they would undermine their own very comfortable positions of power.

In Great Britain, the Power Inquiry, a committee set up by social organisations and consisting of both politicians and citizens, conducted a large-scale investigation into the state of British democracy, and especially into the reasons why so many citizens seem to be turning their backs on politics. They held hearings across the entire country, at which citizens were invited to put forward their opinions, and published the report ‘Power to the People’, which noted: “The one factor felt to cause disengagement that runs through all the strands of our investigation is the very widespread sense that citizens feel their views and interests are not taken sufficiently into account by the process of political decision-making. The depth and extent of this perception among the British public cannot be stressed enough. Many, if not all, of the other accepted explanations presented here can also be understood as variations on this theme of weak citizen influence. (...) This view comes through very strongly in the many public submissions received by the Inquiry„. (Power Inquiry)

In 1992, Professor De Wachter carefully mapped out the political decision-making processes in Belgium. He concluded: “In Belgium, the development of formal democratic institutions has become stunted. More up-to-date designs which would allow citizens to have a lasting impact on decision-making are either denied or at best lead to the failure to take decisions at all„. “The citizens or voters are weak players in the complex and utterly dense social network of political decisions in their country. They lack decisive means of access to the highest levels of the power hierarchy and to decision-making. Everything is decided for them in an extremely elitist manner. For people who are open to ideas of democratic legitimacy, this assessment is both a disappointment and an abdication„.

In 2002, Dutch journalist Gerard van Westerloo interviewed Professor Daudt, a celebrated political scientist. Daudt is seen as the Nestor of Dutch political science; a complete post-war generation of political scientists was trained by him. Professor Daudt wiped the floor with the proposition that the Netherlands was a democracy, dismissing it as follows. Certainly, Daudt said, the fundamental rights are respected, but “let’s not use buzzwords to dress it up as something that it is not: a democracy with people’s representatives. (...) Our democracy is a nonsense„. Because van Westerloo wanted to know what Daudt’s colleagues thought about his views, he made a tour of the Netherlands, visiting dozens of social administration specialists and political scientists. Daudt’s view was confirmed everywhere. In Tilburg, Professor Frissen stated: “In the Netherlands, we are ruled by an arrogant elite, which has nothing to do with democracy in the direct-democratic sense of the word„. In Groningen, Professor Ankersmit said: “Politics in the Netherlands has been driven to the fringe. Democracy as such can no longer be recognised in it„. Professor Tromp from Amsterdam: “Politics in the Netherlands is walking down a dead-end street. A crisis is looming, which cannot be avoided. Political parties are nothing more than networks of people who know and support each other„. Professor De Beus from Amsterdam: “The legitimacy of Dutch democracy is a large-scale form of selfdeception and fraud„. Professor Tops from Tilburg: “The political animal in the Netherlands is as good as tamed and domesticated„. Director Voerman of the Documentation Centre for Dutch Political Parties: “The parliament has become nothing more than a rubber stamping machine„. And according to political scientist Baakman from Maastricht: “We deceive ourselves that what we call democracy also works as democracy„. (Van Westerloo, 2002)

Discussion

Exercise 7. Arrange a round-table discussion on democracy in Western countries and Russia.

UNIT 2. Criminal Law

Criminal law is the body of law that involves the prosecution by the state of a person for an act that has been classified as a crime, defines criminal offences, regulates the apprehension, charging, and trial of suspected persons, and fixes penalties and modes of treatment applicable to convicted offenders. This contrasts with civil law, which involves private individuals and organisations seeking to resolve legal disputes. Since the same act may be both a criminal offence and a civil wrong the distinction between criminal law and tort law is difficult to draw with real precision, but in general one may say that a tort is a private injury while a crime is conceived as an offence against the public, although the actual victim may be an individual.

Important differences exist between the criminal law of most English-speaking countries and that of other countries. The criminal law of England derives from the traditional English common law of crimes and has its origins in the judicial decisions embodied in reports of decided cases. It being extremely difficult to give a single definition to crime on the basis of one common distinguishable feature, England has consistently rejected all efforts toward comprehensive legislative codification of its criminal law; even now there is no statutory definition of murder in English law.

Classification of crimes

To find out what acts can be followed by criminal proceedings one must refer to the laws laid down by Parliament and to the decisions of the courts over the last few centuries. Crimes described in statutes are called statutory crimes, and those described in case law are known as common-law crimes. Originally, the common law divided crimes into felonies (the graver crimes generally punishable with death) and misdemeanours (the lesser crimes punishable with fines or imprisonment). However, already in the 19th century this classification was deemed obsolete and inconsistent. In 1967, when capital punishment in Great Britain was abolished for all crimes except treason, this classification was replaced by the division into arrestable and nonarrestable offences. An arrestable offence is one for which there is a fixed penalty in the law, or one punishable with at least five years’ imprisonment. All other crimes are termed nonarrestable offences. Nowadays the most common way to classify crimes into summary (minor offences considered by magistrates without a jury), indictable (serious crimes committed to the Crown court for trial by jury) and “either-way” offences is helpful to determine which court will deal with the offence.

The elements of a crime

Every crime consists of two important elements: the criminal act itself (actus reus) and the criminal intent to commit a crime (mens rea). The law does not punish for a guilty mind alone: if a person intended to commit a robbery but never even started preparations for it, he will not be punished if his intentions are revealed. Nor does the law punish for a guilty act alone, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove both elements of the crime and establish the causative link between the defendant’s act or omission and the consequences it produced. This link is often referred to as the “chain of causation”.

Criminal law as a general rule does not punish accidental or negligent behavior; it is necessary to prove that the person either intended or foresaw the consequences of his action or was aware of the circumstances that make it criminal. There is however a small number of crimes for which no mens rea or only a limited form of it should be shown. They are called strict liability offences: certain acts are punished as crimes even though they may have been unintentional. Strict liability offences are sometimes called “public welfare offences” involving laws concerning public health and safety. They are most commonly found in statutes dealing with the sale of alcohol, food and drugs; the prevention of pollution; offences relating to road traffic.

Principles of criminal law

In general Anglo-American law follows the principle that citizens have the right to do everything that is not expressly forbidden by the state. At the same time everyone knows that “ignorance of the law is no defence”. Of course, we are not presumed to know all the law — that would be contrary to common sense and reason; and genuine ignorance can be taken into account by the court when deciding how to deal with a case, but if ignorance were an answer to every charge, the entire justice system would be unworkable.

The principle “no punishment without a law” provides that a person can only be punished for a crime if the punishment is prescribed by law.

All legal systems generally include some restriction against prosecuting a person more than once for the same offence (protection against double jeopardy).

Types of punishment

Depending on the offence and the jurisdiction, various types of punishment are available to the courts to punish an offender. A court may sentence an offender to execution, corporal punishment or loss of liberty (imprisonment or incarceration); suspend the sentence; impose a fine; put the offender under government supervision through parole or probation; or place them on a community service order.

Categories of offences

Criminal law commonly proscribes — that is, it prohibits — several categories of offences: offences against the person (e.g. assault), offences against property (e.g. burglary), public-order crimes (e.g. prostitution) and business, or corporate, crimes (e.g. insider dealing).

Burden of proof

In criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to persuade the trier (whether the judge or jury) that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the crime charged. If the prosecutor fails to prove this, the verdict of not guilty is rendered. This standard of proof contrasts with civil cases, where the claimant generally needs to show a defendant is liable on the balance of probabilities (more than 50% probable). In the USA, this is referred to as the preponderance of the evidence.

Trial with a jury

English court system placing unusually heavy reliance on its lay persons, there exist institutions of magistrates (justices of the peace) and jurors in Great Britain. Normally a jury consists of twelve members (eight in the county court). They are selected at random from electoral rolls to achieve a fair cross section of the community. Jurors must be between the ages of 18 and 70, ordinarily resident in the UK for five years since the age of 13. The job of the jury being to decide the questions of fact, it is the judge’s responsibility to guide them on points of law.

Grammar points

The nominative absolute participial construction (самостоятельный причастный оборот)

Самостоятельный причастный оборот можно определить по следующим признакам:

наличие в предложении — ing-формы (Participle I);

наличие запятой (самостоятельный причастный оборот всегда обособляется);

наличие слева от Participle I существительного, местоимения или их сочетания;

отсутствие в данной части предложения глагола в личной форме.

Если самостоятельный причастный оборот стоит в начале предложения, он имеет временное / условное или причинное значение. Самостоятельная причастная конструкция в препозиции переводится на русский язык соответствующим придаточным предложением, вводимым союзами когда; после того, как; поскольку; так как; в силу того, что; при условии; теперь, когда; хотя и другими.

1. It being extremely difficult to give a single definition to crime on the basis of one common distinguishable feature, England has consistently rejected all efforts toward comprehensive legislative codification of its criminal law; even now there is no statutory definition of murder in English law.

Поскольку чрезвычайно трудно дать единое определение преступлению на основании унифицированной характеристики, в Англии постоянно отклонялись попытки целостной кодификации уголовного права; даже в наши дни в английском праве не существует закрепленного законом определения предумышленного убийства.

2. The job of the jury being to decide the questions of fact, it is the judge’s responsibility to guide them on points of law.

Так как работа присяжных сводится к принятию решений по фактическим вопросам, обязанность судьи руководить присяжными по вопросам права.

Самостоятельный причастный оборот в конце предложения выступает в функции сопутствующего обстоятельства и при переводе вводится словами а; и; причем; при этом. Этот оборот может также выделяться в самостоятельное предложение. Довольно часто самостоятельный причастный оборот присоединяется к главному составу предложения при помощи предлога with, который при переводе опускается.

1. Trial courts bear the main burden in the administration of justice, with common pleas courts being the most important courts of general jurisdiction.

Суды первой инстанции несут основное бремя по отправлению правосудия, причем суды общей юрисдикции штата являются наиболее важными из судов первой инстанции.

2. The Supreme Court of the USA is the highest judicial body in the nation, the Chief Justice and eight associate justices being appointed for life by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Верховный суд США — высшая судебная инстанция страны, причем Председатель суда и восемь членов суда назначаются Президентом пожизненно по представлению и с согласия Сената.

Exercise 1. Translate the sentences paying attention to the use of the nominative absolute participial construction.

1. No evidence having been produced, the case was closed and the accused discharged.

2. The sentence is fixed and pronounced by the judge, the task of the jury being to bring in the verdict.

3. The district court being the primary link of the judiciary, most criminal and civil cases are tried by these courts.

4. The investigator managed to solve the case, with strong evidence having been collected.

5. The indictment having been committed to the grand jury, the accused was brought into court and asked to plead.

6. In the USA each state is served by the separate court systems, state and federal, both systems being organized into three basic levels of courts — trial courts, intermediate courts of appeal and a high court, or the Supreme Court.

7. The jurors having no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the verdict was given unanimously.

8. The level of crime in our country having increased, it is necessary to undertake preventive measures to combat it.

9. Improper material having been used by attorney, the judge instructed the jury to disregard what was said.

10. All the evidence being in, both attorneys made their closing arguments to the jury.

11. The case having been defined as a felony, magistrates committed it to the Crown court for trial with a jury.

12. The accused having been sentenced to long-term imprisonment, his lawyer appealed against the severity of the sentence to the higher court.

13. The case of burglary having been considered in outline, magistrates committed it to the Crown court for trial.

14. The verdict of guilty having been brought in, the judge imposed the sentence on the convict.

Essential vocabulary

1) to prosecute — преследовать по закону (в судебном порядке), преследовать в уголовном порядке, предъявлять обвинение;

рrosecution — обвинение (как сторона в процессе);

prosecutor — обвинитель, прокурор (в РФ, США), лицо, возбуждающее и осуществляющее уголовное преследование;

public prosecutor — государственный обвинитель;

to prosecute an inquiry — проводить расследование;

2) a suspect — подозреваемый;

to suspect — подозревать;

to suspect sb of doing sth — подозревать кого-либо в совершении чего-либо;

3) convicted — осужденный; заключенный; лицо, признанное виновным;

a convict — осужденный; признанный виновным;

to convict — признать подсудимого виновным; вынести обвинительный вердикт; осуждать;

conviction — факт признания вины; осуждение; признание виновным;

4) a tort — деликт, гражданское правонарушение;

5) statutory crimes — преступления по статутному праву;

6) common-law crimes — преступления по общему праву;

7) felony — фелония (категория тяжких преступлений, по степени опасности находящаяся между государственной изменой и мисдиминором);

8) misdemeanor — мисдиминор (категория наименее опасных преступлений, граничащих с административными правонарушениями);

9) summary offences — преступления, преследуемые в порядке суммарного (т. е. упрощенного, без участия присяжных) производства; суммарные преступления; наименее тяжкие (незначительные) преступления;

10) indictable offences — преступления, преследуемые по обвинительному акту; тяжкие уголовные преступления, рассматриваемые с участием присяжных;

indictable — подлежащий судебному преследованию;

to indict — предъявлять обвинение (формальное, в письменной форме);

indictment — обвинительное заключение;

11) either-way offences (syn. hybrid, alternative, triable either-way) — преступления двойной подсудности (гибридные, альтернативные преступления);

12) actus reus (лат.) — виновное действие;

13) mens rea (лат.) — виновная воля;

14) chain of causation — причинная связь, цепь причинности;

15) strict liability — объективная ответственность (независимо от наличия вины);

16) double jeopardy — риск дважды понести уголовную ответственность за одно и то же преступление;

17) to suspend the sentence — вынести приговор с отсрочкой исполнения, вынести условный приговор;

18) parole — условно-досрочное освобождение;

19) probation — пробация (разновидность наказания без заключения в тюрьму);

20) burden of proof — бремя доказывания;

21) beyond reasonable doubt — при отсутствии обоснованных сомнений;

22) balance of probabilities — соотношение вероятностей; preponderance of evidence (амер.) — перевес доказательств (критерий доказанности по гражданским делам);

23) trial — судебное производство, судебный процесс, слушание дела по существу;

to bring to trial — предать суду, препроводить в суд;

to face trial — предстать перед судом;

to conduct trial — вести судебный процесс;

a pre-trial stage — этап досудебного разбирательства.

Exercise 2. Fill in the blanks with proper words and word combinations. Consult essential vocabulary if necessary.

balance of probabilities; strict liability offences; probation; misdemeanors; felonies; a fine; actus reus; reasonable doubt; summary offences; the burden of proof; common-law crimes; treason; double jeopardy; mens rea; statutory offences; either-way offences; criminal law

1. In criminal cases ______________is upon the prosecution.

2. In a criminal case there must not be any ______________as to the guilt of the accused, the verdict must be unanimous.

3. The claimant in a civil action is required to prove his case on a________________, i.e. to show that his case is more probable than not.

4. In criminal matters common pleas courts have exclusive jurisdiction over_________________.

5. ________________are always dealt with by magistrates without a jury.

6. An important aspect of _______________is that in most crimes the prosecution has to prove two elements: the first, ______________, refers to the criminal act itself; the second, _______________, refers to the intent to commit a crime.

7. The most common types of punishment in Great Britain are fines, prison and________________.

8. In Anglo-American law the most difficult problems of _______________involve the question of whether the second prosecution is for the “same” or a “different” offence.

9. All advanced legal systems condemn as criminal the sorts of conduct described in Anglo-American law as____________, murder, aggravated assault, theft, robbery, burglary, arson, and rape.

10. There are many crimes known as_________________, which, as the name implies, can be tried either by magistrates or at the Crown court.

11. ___________________are sometimes called “public welfare offences” involving laws concerning public health and safety.

12. Crimes described in statutes are called_________________, and those described in case law are known as__________________.

13. Common law divided crimes into felonies (the graver crimes punishable with death) and _________________(the lesser crimes punishable with fines or imprisonment).

14. The usual penalty for crimes of strict liability is_______________.

Exercise 3. Substitute the highlighted definitions with word combinations from above.

summary offences (a)

protection against double jeopardy (b)

burglary (c)

criminal law (d)

actus reus (e)

criminal prosecution (f)

a jury (g)

felony (h)

parole (i)

mens rea (j)

criminal behavior (k)

indictment (l)

an appeal (m)

the burden of proof (n)

1. The body of law that defines criminal offences, regulates the apprehension, charging, and trial of defendants.

2. Some restriction against prosecuting a person more than once for the same offence.

3. The duty of the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.

4. The supervised release of prisoners before the completion of their sentence in prison.

5. A petition for review of a case that has been decided by a court of law.

6. Less serious offences heard by magistrates without a jury.

7. Entering a building, inhabited vehicle or vessel to steal, inflict bodily harm or do unlawful damage.

8. A crime of a graver or more serious nature than those designated as misdemeanors.

9. A wrongful deed which renders the actor criminally liable if combined with mens rea.

10. An accusation in writing found and presented by a grand jury (in the USA), legally convoked and sworn, to the court in which it is impaneled, charging that a person therein named has done some act, or been guilty of some omission, which by law is a punishable public offence.

11. A guilty mind or a criminal intent as an element of criminal responsibility.

12. A certain number of men and women selected according to law, and sworn to inquire of certain matters of fact, and declare the truth upon evidence to be laid before them.

13. Conduct which causes any social harm which is defined and made punishable by law.

14. An action of proceeding instituted in a proper court on behalf of the public, for the purpose of securing the conviction and punishment of one accused of a crime.

Exercise 4. Arrange a round-table discussion on criminal law in the USA and UK. Compare it to the one that exists in the Russian Federation.

Exercise 5. Read, translate and render the text.

Criminal procedure

The law of criminal procedure regulates how the suspected offenders are apprehended, charged with the crime and tried in the court of law; it also regulates how the convicted person is to be punished and how he can appeal against the conviction or severity of the sentence. Crime investigation is generally the responsibility of the police, although special law enforcement agencies may also be concerned with detection of particular types of crimes. In the investigation of serious crimes, law enforcement agencies are helped by forensic science with its array of techniques, such as identification by fingerprints, analysis of bloodstains, fibers, hair samples, etc.

It is essential that the police gather sufficient legally admissible evidence to indict the person before the court, that is, convince the court that the suspect is guilty. In order to secure the necessary evidence, the police employ a variety of powers and procedures. One important procedure is a search of the suspect or of his premises or vehicles. A person suspected of committing an offence may be stopped and searched, provided the police officer identifies himself and states the reasons for the search. A search of private premises usually requires a search warrant issued by a magistrate or judge. The police may enter premises without a warrant, where they have reasonable cause to believe that a serious offence is being committed, or to save life or property.

The defence lawyer has a double function in the investigation phase of the criminal process: to assist the suspect in gathering exonerating evidence and to protect him from violations of his rights. All suspects now have the right to have a solicitor present at their interview.

Prosecution

If the police institute criminal proceedings against a suspect, it is for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to decide whether the case should proceed. The prosecutor has power to determine with what crime the defendant is to be charged. Normally the prosecutor charges the most serious offence that can be sustained by the evidence. However, since the cooperation of the defendant, especially in offering a plea of guilty, shortens and simplifies the trial, prosecutors reduce charges on condition that the defendant does not contest the accusation in court — the practice known as “plea bargaining”.

Trial

All criminal cases start in the magistrates’ courts. The minor cases stay there, with the magistrates deciding on guilt or innocence and then sentencing the criminal. Serious cases are referred by the magistrates to the Crown court — this is called “committal”. In committals, all the magistrates do is hear the outline evidence and decide whether there is a case to answer. Crown court judges have power to sentence more heavily than magistrates.

On committal the accused is either released (bailed”) by the magistrates, or — if the police think there is a danger he or she might disappear or threaten prosecution witnesses — held in prison until the trial.

Whether the case is committed to the Crown court depends on the seriousness of the crime. The most minor crimes, such as most motoring offences, are known as summary offences, and they are always dealt with by magistrates. The most serious crimes such as murder and armed robbery are called indictable offences, and are always committed to the Crown court. In a case to be tried on indictment, a judge may hold a preliminary hearing, where pleas of guilty or not guilty are taken. Only if the defendant contests the accusation by pleading not guilty a trial is held. Otherwise the judge will proceed to sentence.

There are many crimes known as “either way” offences, which, as the name implies, may be tried by magistrates or in the Crown court. Sometimes the decision is up to the accused himself, but he should listen carefully to the advice of his lawyer: he may decide that he stands a better chance of being acquitted by a sympathetic jury than by a panel of stern magistrates, but he runs the risk of a higher sentence from a Crown court judge if the jury do find him guilty.

An English trial follows the adversarial procedure where presentation of evidence is left to the parties, and strict rules of evidence govern how matters may be proved.

Sentencing

The most common sentences are fines, imprisonment and probation. Probation is used with more minor offences. A person on probation must report to a local police station at regular intervals, which restricts his or her movement. Magistrates and judges may also pass suspended sentences, in which case the person will not serve the sentence unless he or she commits another crime, when it will be implemented without more ado. A sentence of community service means that the convicted person has to spend several hours a week doing useful work in his locality.

Almost all criminal offences are created by statute. Statutes also prescribe what the maximum penalty for the offence should be, but the judge may reduce it to the length he thinks appropriate.

Appealing

People who have been convicted can appeal if their lawyer can either show that the trial was wrongly conducted or produce new evidence. Appeal can also be made against the severity of the sentence. Appeals from a magistrates’ court are referred to the Crown court and then up through the courts system to the Supreme Court (before October 2009 the Judicial Chamber of the House of Lords was considered to be the highest court in the land). From there appeals are referred to the European Court of Justice.

Exercise 6. Make a précis of the part headlined “Trial”.

UNIT 3. Civil Law

Family Law — an area of law covering family-related issues

Civil law is a body of rules that defines and protects the private rights of citizens, offers legal remedies that may be sought in a dispute, and covers areas of law such as contracts, torts, property and family law. Civil law is derived from the laws of ancient Rome which used doctrines to develop a code that determined how legal issues would be decided. Civil law is used in most nations in Europe and Latin America, as well as in some countries in Asia and Africa.

Family law is the body of law regulating family relationships, including marriage and divorce, the treatment of children, and related economic matters and is a very popular area of law for contemporary lawyers.

In the past, family law was closely connected with the law of property and succession and, judging from the records available, it must have originated principally in the economic and property questions created by the transfer of a female from her father's family to the power and guardianship of her husband. Even with regard to the relationship between parent and child, legal concepts such as guardianship, custody, and legitimacy were associated with family power structures and family economic interests. Family law also traditionally has to do with matters of personal status — for example, the question of whether a person is to be considered married or single, legitimate or illegitimate — though the incidents and importance of these distinctions often derive from the law of property.

Family law shares an interest in certain social issues with other areas of law, including criminal law. For example, one issue that has received considerable attention since the late 20th century is the very difficult problem of violence within the family, which may take the form of physical violence by one adult member on another or by an adult on a child or some other violent or abusive conduct within a family circle. In serious cases the court may order cohabitation to be terminated or an abused child to be removed from the family unit into some form of public or foster custody.

Now let’s consider some common legal problems associated with the family.

Family groups

A family group has a certain internal structure as well as relationships between itself and third parties. Family groups in some societies have tended to be complex, as, for example, the Roman paterfamilial group, the Chinese upper-class family, the Indian joint family, the samurai family in Japan, and many customary family structures in Africa. The family may be a part of a larger group such as the tribe or clan.

Legal consequences of marriage

Two persons might produce the economic incidents of marriage by executing appropriate contracts or settlements. In some legal systems, a contract in conventional form is the core of the constitution of marriage. The contract may be complex, with a variety of clauses, as in Islamic law (Shariah). In most countries today, however, the legal documentation of a marriage is mainly a registration of the event. Basically, then, marriage in the legal sense is the implied creation of certain rights or obligations such as maintenance, marital property and succession rights, and the custody of minor children.

In modern systems, the parties to a marriage can usually create the economic incidents of the marriage by a separate agreement. In some early legal systems and in present systems in which customary family law pertains, there is little choice as to the economic incidents of marriage because these are fixed by custom. In legal systems that allow substantial scope for personal independence, the spouses can take up a position of their own as to the economic basis of their family group by means of a marriage contract or a will.

One feature that distinguishes marriage from a simple contract is that, in many countries, the parties cannot release themselves by mutual agreement. But some legislation in North America and Western Europe permits the parties to do this; the grounds of divorce have been so widened that the marriage can be terminated, for example, after a period of separation.

Children

It is almost universally the rule that natural or adopting parents (parent) have a primary duty to maintain their minor children. In the great majority of cases, the care and upbringing of a child belongs to its biological parents automatically, without regard to their qualification or suitability. No doubt this arrangement was due originally to its convenience and lack of alternatives, though examples may be found of groups rearing their children in common (usually in tribal societies). The parental system also has been justified on religious grounds.

Legitimacy

By the common law of England, an “illegitimate” child was a filius nullius (without relatives). There may have been two main reasons for this former, discriminatory attitude. First, certain unions between the sexes were designated