Hollywood is concerned about stalking and stalkers because

A of warnings from security companies.

В actors are constantly demanding greater protection.

С there may be serious financial consequences.

D ordinary fans are becoming more of a threat to stars.

4 The typical stalker is a person with
A a reputation for violence.

В a talent for personal relationships.

С an unsatisfactory personal life.

D predictable behaviour patterns.

5 The stalker that is the most difficult to track is one who has

A fabricated a relationship.

В been unable to give up a relationship.

С established a superficial relationship.

D met victims through leisure activities.

6 Detective Greg Boles of the LA Police Department believes that

A investigating domestic stalking is a priority.

В stalking cases are getting stranger and stranger.

С potential victims of stalkers over-react.

D other police departments need more training.

V. FIND these words and expressions in the text. What do they mean? Which are colloquial? Can you think of neutral alternatives to replace them?

1. To date

2. if.... are anything to go by

3. institute

4. pioneer

5. intimidate

6. a sorry business

7. get a line on

8. foil

VI. DISCUSS these questions

1. Can you name any other celebrities who have been victims of stalking? Describe what happened.

2. If you were a famous person, what precautions could you take against stalkers?

 

READING 3

The Death Penalty: Legal Cruelty? by Donald B. Walker

The execution of Gary Mark Gilmore by a Utah firing squad on Jan. 17, 1977, marked the end of a 10-year moratorium on the use of capital punishment in the U.S. Since that time, seven more executions have taken place — one each in Alabama, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, Nevada, Virginia, and Texas. The latest innova­tion in the manner of killing was revealed in Texas on Dec. 14, 1982, when Charlie Brooks, Jr., was put to death by lethal injection. This new method of execution raises additional ethical issues in the debate over the death penal­ty. As a consequence of these eight executions and the impending death of numerous other death row inmates; the issue of capital punish­ment is once again in the public forum.

In 1972, at the time of the Furman v. Georgia decision, 629 persons were housed on death rows throughout the U.S. Today, just over 10 years later, the death row population exceeds 1,100 — 500 condemned persons morethan at the time of Furman!While the debate over capital punishment has continued sporadically, and for the most part academically, over the past 20 years, the issue today takes on a greater sense of urgency. The sheer size of the death row population creates a significant moral dilemma for our society. In addition, since the appeals process for many of these condemned persons has been virtually exhausted, the debate takes on a heightened sense of immediacy. In short, under the present conditions, the debateis far less an academic exercise over the signi­ficant levels of deterrence data than it is a signi­ficant public issue related to the concept of justice in our society.

The fundamental question which must be addressed with respect to the death penalty is under what circumstance does the state have the right to take the life of one of its citizens? That question, with respect to the use of capital punishment for first-degree murder convictions, was answered by the Supreme Court in the Furman and Gregg decisions. In those cases, the Court held that the death penalty itself does not contravene the Eighth Amendment's prohibi­tion against cruel and unusual punishment as long as it is applied in a fair and impartial manner. The Gregg decision further clarified the procedure which the sentencing court must use in determining the fate of the guilty defendant.

What has been overlooked in these decisions is that the Supreme Court has answered the question only in a legal and not in any moral or ethical sense. One hard lesson which the world should have learned as a consequence of the Holocaust is that law and justice are independent concepts. Law is the derivation of a society's interpretation of justice which is relative both to time and place. Furthermore, the creation of law is more frequently the result of the inter­pretation of justice by the powerful in the society which is then applied at the expense of the powerless. A moral and humane society con­stantly seeks to bring the law into closer harmony with the widest interpretation of justice in that society at any given time. The civil rights move­ment in the U.S. is an excellent example of this process.

The contention here is that the continued use of the death penalty in the U.S. constitutes a flagrant example of the continuing gap between law and justice in our society. While the Supreme Court has upheld the legality of capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment, it has ignored the moral and ethical implications of the "cruel and unusual" clause.

If one considers the deliberate infliction of pain and suffering on others to be "cruel," then capital punishment, regardless of its legal inter­pretation, must fit that definition. Both the actual manner of execution and the long period of confinement in death row preceding its appli­cation cause acute pain and mental suffering to the condemned person. The uneasiness which we, in the U.S., feel towards the infliction of pain on the condemned prisoner has led to a continuous search for more refined and "humane" means of carrying out the execution order.

Charlie Brooks, Jr., the first person killed by lethal injection, has now taken his place in history along with other objects of experimen­tation in this quest to kill people painlessly. However, the use of otherwise life-saving medical techniques and drugs to carry out exe­cutions raises serious ethical questions for the society as a whole and the medical profession in particular. Even though Texas District Judge Doug Shaver feels that death by lethal injection "will make it more palatable," it surely can not make it more ethical. On the other hand, if we remain convinced that capital punishment is both a necessary and just means of ensuring social defense, why is it necessary to make it "palatable"? Despite the legal interpretation of the concept "cruel,"the moral interpretation of that concept and its relationship to justice in our society remains unsettling.

Furman v. Georgia decision: In Furman v. Georgia the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty in Georgia was unconstitutional because it was applied inconsistently as far more blacks than whites were executed for similar crimes. The court, however, did not rule that the death penalty violated the 8th Amendment.

Gregg v. Georgia decision: the Court ruled that the death penalty was not unconstitutional as such under the 8th and 14th Amendments.

8th Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

I. COMPREHENSION CHECK

1. Why was the discussion about the death penalty more urgent at the time the article appeared than ten years before?

2. In its Furman and Gregg decisions how did the Supreme Court rule on the question of the circumstances under which the state has the right to take the life of one of its citizens?

3. According to Donald B. Walker, which aspect of the issue did the Supreme Court deal with and which aspect did it ignore?

4. How do the concepts of law and justice relate to each other?

5. What is the author's view on capital punishment?

6. How does he support his view?

7. What is the author's opinion on carrying out executions by lethal injection?

II. DISCUSSION

Have a debate on the notion:

"Capital punishment is unethical and should be banned."

 

LISTENING

A nation of jailbirds