Упражнение 2. Переведите следующие предложения. Найдите причастный оборот, определите его тип («зависимый» или «независимый»).

1. An arrest warrant is an order issued by a judge or magistrate authorizing the arrest of a particular person for a particular crime.

2. There are several kinds of punishment available to the courts, the most common punishment being a fine in civil cases.

3. Within the federal system, the law enforcement agency initiating the prosecution is a federal law enforcement agency such as the F.B.I., Secret Service, or other federal agency.

4. The number of crimes increasing, some prison cells have to accommodate far more people than they were built to hold.

5. Over the last several years, Congress has enacted federal criminal statutes dealing with such things as carjacking and nonpayment of child support.

6. The debate about capital punishment continuing, the phenomenon of death row (категория заключенных, ожидающих исполнения смертного приговора) increases.

7. Juries at the court do not render written decisions explaining their analysis of the case, but rather simply render a verdict.

8. The legal English language is characterized by words and expressions which have no meaning for non-lawyers, some of them coming from Latin and French.

9. There being no chance to escape, the thief was arrested on the spot.

10. A jury chosen, the court will allow both parties to have opening statements.

 

Упражнение 3. Переведите следующие предложения на русский язык дважды: самостоятельно и с помощью любой компьютерной системы перевода (например, Prompt или Translate). Сравните полученные переводы.

1. If there is no jury deciding the case, then the judge may enter a verdict or a judgment order fixing the amount of damages or granting one party the form of relief that is sought.

2. The entire world population suffers from ecological crime, the perpetrators being mostly enterprises that act in collusion with environmental regulators.

3. The advocate representing the accused at the trial, the latter did not make any statement.

4. A person can use whatever force, short or deadly force, which reasonably appears to be necessary to protect property. A classic case in that regard involved the homeowner who laid a trap in his home consisting of a spring gun that fired when the burglar entered the front door. Since a spring gun automatically fires, anyone entering the house is at risk. And since human life is valued over property, the homeowner cannot claim defense of property when someone was killed entering the house.

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

6. The police together with social organizations constantly seek the best forms and methods of crime prevention, explanation of the law to the citizens playing an important part.

7. In England, anyone facing criminal prosecution is entitled to choose a firm of lawyers to represent him.

8. The UN has declared itself in favor of capital punishment abolition, Amnesty International actively campaigning for abolition, and the issue being now the focus of great debate.

 

SPEAKING PRACTICE (РАЗГОВОРНАЯ ПРАКТИКА)

 

Текст 1 “Specific Intent Crimes” Текст 2 “Types of Specific Intent Crimes” Текст 3 “Defences” Текст 4 “Three Strikes and Strike Priors”

 

 

 

Вопросы для обсуждения:

 

Crime is a problem in most countries, especially in the large cities. Which is the worst kind of crime in your opinion? Why?

 

Текст 1

Переведите следующий текст, пользуясь словарем, и научитесь его бегло читать:

Specific Intent Crimes

According to common law, in order for something to be classified as a "crime," a certain number of elements must be met. At a bare minimum, a crime usually requires (a) proof of some type of physical act (called the actus reus) and proof of a (b) certain mental state (called the mens rea) by the person while committing the act. In other words, the State (i.e. government) must prove that a person actually committed the act accused of and acted with a certain mental state. The State must also generally prove that the act and the mental state occurred at the same time (i.e. they occurred concurrently). The State may also have to prove causation and a harmful result.

Further, with respect to the mens rea, or the mental state, crimes can be classified into four main categories, including: (1) specific intent crimes, (2) general intent crimes, (3) crimes committed with malice, and (4) strict liability crimes.

Specific intent in criminal law refers to the mental state, legally called the mens rea, that an individual has when committing a crime. Specific intent means that an individual did a certain act with a specific intent or purpose. This type of mental state cannot be just inferred from merely doing the act. There must be a specific objective or reason for doing the actual act. However, many times the State can only show actions and/or inactions of the accused to prove a specific intent crime.

For purposes of clarity, let’s also briefly discuss the three other types of intent crimes: (a) general intent crimes, (b) crimes committed with malice, and (c) strict liability crimes.

General intent crimes do not require proof that a person intended the precise harm or result that occurred. Rather, the State only needs to prove that the act was committed and it was not an accident. Crimes committed with malice require that the State prove that a person acted deliberately to cause unjustifiable injury to another. However, most jurisdictions do not use the term "malice" anymore. Instead, crimes committed with malice have mostly been written into statutes as specific intent crimes or have been omitted. Finally, strict liability crimes require no mental state to prove a person liable for the crime. Rather, the State only needs to prove that the person committed the crime. Strict liability crimes include such crimes as driving while intoxicated or statutory rape. For example, statutory rape means that the defendant raped a minor under a certain age. In this crime, the State does not need to prove whether the defendant knew the age of the minor or whether the defendant thought the minor consented. In other words, statutory rape statute means that by law minors cannot consent to sex with adults.

Are There Any Defenses to Specific Intent Crimes?

The most common form of defense to a specific intent crime is voluntary intoxication. That is, the defendant knowingly consumed a substance that rendered them incapacitated. This is a defense because, since he is incapacitated, he is unable to form the required mental state for specific intent crimes. The intoxication is said to “negate” the required intent.

Although such defenses may be available for specific intent crimes, this does not mean that they will automatically relieve the defendant of all guilt. Sometimes the defense simply serves to lower the charge to a less serious one, for example, from 1st degree murder to a simple homicide charge.

Cлова к тексту 1:

1. concurrently [kənˊkʌrəntlɪ] - одновременно

2. causation [kɔ:ˊzeɪʃən] - причинение

3. specific intent - специальный умысел

4. general intent - общий умысел

5. malice [ˊmælɪs] - злой умысел

6. strict liability [ˏlaɪəˊbɪlɪtɪ] - объективная ответственность (независимо от наличия вины)

7. to infer [ɪnˊfə:] - подразумевать

8. deliberately [dɪˊlɪbərɪtlɪ] - намеренно

9. unjustifiable [ʌnˊʤʌstɪfaɪəbl] - не имеющий оправдания

10. statutory [ˊstætjutərɪ] - статутарный, предусмотренный законом

11. to consent - согласие

12. a defense - обстоятельство, освобождающее от ответственности

13. voluntary intoxication - добровольное приведение себя в состояние опъянения

14. incapacitated [ˏɪnkəˊpæsɪteɪtɪd] - неспособный, непригодный

15. to relieve [rɪˊli:v] - освобождать

УПРАЖНЕНИЯ