se.'
4) A story that lawyers and law students never appreciate is the
one about the two pickpockets who were working in the crowd in
front of a downtown office building. They noticed one man who took
a fat wallet out of his pocket, counted the
contents
and went into the elevator.
They followed him into the elevator but weren’ t able to reach him
before he got off and entered
a lawyer's office.
In few minutes they saw the man come out Then one pickpocket said
to the other 'What'll we do now?' the other replied, 'You know what
to do. We'll
wait for the lawyer to come out.'
5)'No doubt about it,' said the lawyer. 'This is one of the
strongest cases I've ever heard. There isn't a
chance of
losing in court.'
'Thanks,' said the client, grabbing for his hat and coat. 'I guess
I'll
settle this out of court.'
'But I said you can't lose,' cried the lawyer.
'I know, but what I told you was the
other man's side of the
case.'
Task 2:
【答案】
Main Idea:
The importance of jury trial in the US legal system
and the contemporary challenges it faces
I.
The jury trial is the central element in the American
conception of justice.
A.
The right to trial by an impartial jury. is one of the oldest
and least controversial guarantees in the Constitution.
B.
America is distinctive among all nations for the central role
accorded the jury trial in its justice system.
C. To American citizens, participation in government is represented
by voting and jury service.
II.
The future of jury trial is uncertain due to the rapid
changes in American society.
A.
Increases in the volume of civil and criminal trials have put
great pressure on the jury system.
B.
There have been dramatic increases in the length and
complexity of trials.
C.
In civil cases, it sometimes seems impossible for jury
members to have the special knowledge needed due to the advance in
science and technology.
D.
Changes in trial method and greater public access have
altered the nature of the trial jury.
【原文】
The jury trial is the central element in the American conception of
justice. The fight to trial by an impartial jury, insulated from
influence by oppressive political powers, is one of the oldest and
least controversial guarantees in the Constitution. America is
distinctive among all nations for the central role accorded the
jury trial in its justice system. The more than 300,000 jury trials
a year are of enormous practical and symbolic significance to those
who are involved in them and to those who see or hear about them.
To the typical American citizen, participation in government is
represented by voting and jury service.
Despite the long history of the jury
trial and despite its current significance in the legal system, its
future is uncertain. Changes in American society have created new
demands for justice which may not be met by traditional jury
trials. Increases in the volume of civil and criminal trials have
clogged the court system and placed unprecedented strains on the
ability of the jury system to dispense high quality justice. There
have been dramatic increases in the length and complexity of
trials. In some jurisdictions, jury selection alone may last as
long as a week in a typical criminal case. Although not common,
civil and criminal cases lasting months and even years place a
burden on the system. On the civil side, advances in science and
engineering have created complexities in disputes that challenge
the experts in the field and would seem to require an unattainable
level of sophistication on the part of jury members. Technological
developments are also changing some of the conventions of evidence
and procedure at trial and providing opportunities for public
access through media reportage, which has altered the nature of the
trial jury.
Task 3:
【答案】
A.
1) T
2) F
3) T
4) F
5) T
6) T
7) F
8) F
B.
1) Every witness must swear an oath, with his hand on the
Bible, 'To tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth'.
2) Cross-examination is the examination of a witness by his
opponent. For example, every witness called by the prosecuting
counsel may be examined by the defending barrister, and vice
versa.
3) It is a question that suggests something instead of asking for
information.
4) “Hearsay” evidence is what one has heard others say about an
event.
【原文】
While you were staying with us during the summer, I remember you
asked me a lot of questions about law in this country. I'm afraid I
wasn't able to help you much. We read in our papers about trials in
the law courts, but few law-abiding citizens are experts on the
subject.
You asked me to tell you how criminal
trials in England differ from criminal trials in Europe, and I
couldn't tell you much—except, I remember, that I said that in
England a person accused 26 crime must always be supposed innocent
until he has been proved guilty. Newspapers mustn't describe the
accused as “the murderer; he's “the accused” or “the prisoner”.
Last month I served as a member of the jury at an important
criminal trial, so I learnt quite a lot. I thought you'd be
interested, and that's why I'm writing.
The prisoner was accused of robbing a bank and of wounding the
night watchman
who tried to stop him. He pleaded 'Not
Guilty', so the trial was a long one. We had to listen t some lo,
speeches and a lot of evidence.
I'm over 50 and this was my first experience of serving as a juror.
We're liable for jury service between 21 and 60, so you see I might
have been called on many years ago. Of the 12 members of the jury,
three were women. Two of the men were small shopkeepers, one was a
motor mechanic, and another was a school teacher. I didn't find out
what the others were, but you can see we were a mixed lot.
We had three stories to listen to. First there was the story told
by the counsel for the prosecution, then the story told by the
defending counsel, and lastly the story told by the judge, a
summing up of what was said by counsel and witnesses. By 'counsel'
1 mean the barrister or barristers employed on either side.
The prosecuting counsel began by telling the court what he intended
to prove by evidence. Then he called his witnesses. These people
can say what they know only in answer to questions, so the
examination of witnesses is very important. Every witness may be
examined by the barrister who is defending the prisoner. This is
the cross-examination. The judge can interfere if he thinks any of
the questions are unfair. He always objects to what are called
'leading questions', questions that suggest something instead of
asking for information. (Perhaps you know the old example: 'When
did you stop beating your wife?') Leading questions are allowed,
however, in cross-examination.
The defending counsel then had his turn. He called new witnesses,
including the accused man himself. These witnesses were then
cross-examined by the prosecuting counsel.
The law of evidence is very strict. Every witness must, before he
goes into the witness box, swear an oath, with his hand on the
Bible, 'To tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth'. A witness may tell only what he himself knows to be true.
'Hearsay' evidence is not allowed. If, for example, Mr. X saw a man
forcing a way into a building, he can describe what he saw, and
this is evidence. If he tells his wife about it, a description of
what happened, given by the wife, is not evidence. She heard her
husband's story, but she herself did not see what happened.
When all the evidence had been given, and the examination of the
witnesses was finished, counsel for both sides made further
speeches. Counsel for the prosecution tried to show that, from the
evidence they had heard, the jury could only find the accused
person guilty. Counsel for the defence tried to show that the
accused was not guilty. Then the judge summed up.
Task 4:
【答案】
A.
1) b
2) a
3) b
4) c
B.
1) The judges are responsible for summing up the evidence, and call
the jurymen's attention to all the important points in the evidence
and in the speeches made by counsel for both sides.
2) The judge usually gives a more severe sentence to the
accused.
3) No. This is based on the principle of the division between the
forces of the law who keep order, and the forces who conduct
trials.
【原文】
There are quite a lot of people in England who think that 12
ordinary men and women are not capable of understanding properly
all the evidence given at criminal trials. I had doubts about this
myself until I served as juror last month. I don't feel so doubtful
now. Our judges are expert in summing up the evidence. They take
notes during the trial. The judge, in the case I'm writing about,
called our attention to all the important points in the evidence
and in the speeches made by counsel for both sides. He favored
neither prosecution nor defense. He told us what crime the accused
would be guilty of, if the evidence supplied by the prosecution was
true.
The members of the jury have to decide only the questions of fact.
Questions of law are for the judge. So when the judge had finished
his summing up, he said to us, 'Will you please consider your
verdict?'
We retired to a private room to do this. I was elected foreman (or
chairman). You probably know hat if at least 10 jurymen cannot
agree, the jury must be discharged, and that then there is a new
trial with a fresh jury. In this case we were not long in reaching
a decision. The evidence against the accused man was so strong that
we had no need to discuss it for long. English law requires that
the guilt of an accused man must be proved 'beyond reasonable
doubt'. We had no doubt at all, so when we returned to the court
and I was asked, 'Do you find the accused 'Guilty' or 'Not
Guilty'?' I gave the answer 'Guilty.'
Here's another interesting point about the law of evidence. The
police may know quite a lot about the previous life of the accused
man. They may have records to show that he is a habitual criminal,
that he has often been accused of crime and proved guilty. But this
information cannot be given in court until after the jury has
brought in their verdict.
In this case the police records showed that the accused had served
three terms of imprisonment for robbery, one of them being robbery
with violence, lf we had known this before we considered out
verdict, and if the evidence against the man had been weak, we
might have been inclined to declare him guilty, in spite of weak
evidence against him.
The accused's past record of crime, if he has one, is given after
the verdict so that the judge may know better what sentence to
pass. If the accused has never before been convicted of crime, the
sentence is not likely to be severe, unless the crime is one of
violence. First offenders are usually treated with sympathy. If, on
the other hand, the accused man has a long record of convictions,
the judge will pass a more severe sentence.
There's one more point worth mentioning. The police officers who
find and arrest an accused man may appear as witnesses at the
trial. But they appear only as witnesses. They have no share in the
examination of the accused. There is a clear division between the
forces of the law who keep order, and the forces who conduct trials
in courts.
Task 5:
【答案】
A.
1) b
2) a
3) c
4) c
B.
The Sentencing Systems in the US and Europe
|
The US System
|
The European System
|
Characteristics
|
Punishments are
high/harsh/severe—more long-term imprisonments are
used.
|
Punishments are low:
Fines or short-term imprisonments are commonly
used.
|
Rationales Behind the
System
|
1) It is adversarial in many
ways. Not only the prosecutor, but also the state is the
adversary of the defendant.
2) Heavy criminals are treated as “permanent outcasts”
because Americans don’t consider “reintegration” as realistic
possibility.
|
1) The purpose of the sentences is to
cure the offender of his deviant ways and to
reintegrate him into society as soon as possible.
2) The state assumes a parental role with the
offender.
|
【原文】
Crane: As I understand it, your sentences are pretty reasonable
compared to ours. You mostly use fines, and when you do incarcerate
people, it's usually for short terms. In the United States, our
potential sentences are extremely high, and sometimes the
legislature fixes the punishment and gives the judge no discretion
to lower it for a particular defendant who doesn't deserve that
much. So plea bargaining is our way of reaching a just
result.
Becker: Why are your sentences so low? Don't you want to stop
crime?
Schmrz: Of course we do. But we do it by curing the offender of his
deviant ways and reintegrating him into society as soon as
possible. The state assumes a parental role with the offender. By
contrast, your system seems to be adversarial in more ways than
one. Not only is the prosecutor the adversaxy of the defendant, so
is the state itself. We prefer to see offenders as potentially
decent citizens who have temporarily gone astray.
Becker: We used to see them that way, but at some point we gave up.
These days, heavy criminals are treated as permanent outcasts. We
don't see 'reintegration' as a realistic possibility, so we pretty
much lock 'em up and throwaway the key.
Schmrz: Do 'you think this is an effective way to reduce
crime?
Becker: Sure. If they're crimes-at least community. in jail, they
can't commit not on the law-abiding community.
Schmrz: But they will eventually get out. When they are released,
do their punishments make them less likely to commit more
crimes?
Crane: No way. They'll be
more likely to commit new crimes.
We don't spend much effort trying to teach prisoners to adjust to
society and earn their way honestly, so they just learn more about
being criminals. And sentences being as long as they are, often
these guys are pretty angry when they get out. We treat them as
outcasts, so that's what they become.
Schmrz: It seems odd. You punish your defendants more severely than
we do, in order to reduce crime, and yet your crime rates are much
higher than ours. What conclusions may we draw from this?
Crane: It's pretty obvious, isn't it? Harsh punishments don't
work.
Becker: That's ridiculous. You could just as logically conclude
that because of our high crime rates, we
need harsher
punishments to prevent them from going even higher.
Task 6:
【答案】
A.
Thesis:
Factors in both the physical environment and the social
environment are causes of crime. but the latter are
more important.
I. The causes in physical environment: relatively unimportant, yet
worthy of note
A. Two factors that have influence on crimes:
1.
Climate
2.
Season
B. Two general rules that may indicate the
influence
1. More crimes against the
person in warm climate than
crimes against property
2.
More crimes against
the person in summer than in winter
II. The causes in the social environment: the most important
causes
A. Conditions connected with the family: greater
influence on crimes than other set of causes
1.
Undue proportion of criminals
from demoralized families
e.g. most children in reform schools are from demoralized
families
2. Influence of domestic conditions
on adults
B.
Industrial conditions
1. Conditions that may produce
crimes
a. Economic
crises
b.
Hard
times
c.
Strikes
2. Quetelet's theory:
As the price of
food increases,
crimes against property increase, while crimes
against persons decrease.
3. Different rates of crimes among
various classes
a. Least crimes
committed by
the agricultural classes
b. Most crimes
committed by
the unemployed or those with no
occupation
C.
Urbanization and other conditions concerning
the distribution and density of the population
In general, more crimes in the cities than in the country
areas
D. Educational conditions
1. More crimes caused by
defective educational conditions
e.g.
illiterates who are more likely to commit crimes
2. Defects in educational system
a. Lack of
facilities for vocational education
b.
Lack
of physical education
c.
Lack
of specific moral instruction
E. The press and the motion picture
Excessive use of crime in them
as
an important stimulus to crime
F.
Certain social institutions
Lack of opportunities for
healthy
social recreation among
poorer people, particularly
in
large cities
【原文】
The objective causes of crime may be divided into causes in the
physical environment and causes in the social environment. The
causes in the physical environment are relatively unimportant, but
are worthy of note. Climate and season seem to be the two chief
physical factors that influence crime; and in connection with these
we have two general rules, abundantly verified by statistics;
namely, crimes against the person are more numerous in southern
climates than crimes against property; and again crimes against the
person are more numerous in summer than in winter, while crimes
against property are more numerous in winter than in summer. All
this is of course simply an outcome of the effect of climate and
season upon general living conditions.
Many researchers believe that the causes of crime in the social
environment are of course much the most important causes of crime
in general. Let us briefly note some of the more important social
conditions that give rise to crime.
1. Conditions connected with the family life have a great influence
on crime. Since the family is the chief agency in society for
socializing the young, perhaps domestic conditions are more
important in the production of crime than any other set of causes.
We have already seen that demoralized homes contribute an undue
proportion of criminals. It is estimated by those in charge of
reform schools for delinquent children that from 85 to 90 percent
of the children in those institutions come from more or less
demoralized or disrupted families. Domestic conditions also have an
influence on adults. This is best shown perhaps by the fact that so
large a proportion of criminals in our prisons are unmarried.
2. Industrial conditions also have a profound influence upon
criminal statistics. Economic crises, hard times, strikes,
lockouts, are all productive of crime. Quetelet, the Belgian
statistician, thought that the general rule could be laid down
that, as the price of food increases, crimes against property
increase, while crimes against persons decrease. At any rate,
increase in the cost of the necessities of life is very apt to
increase crimes of certain sorts.
The various industrial classes show a different ratio of
criminality. In general among industrial classes the least crime is
committed by the agricultural classes, while the most crime is
committed by the unemployed or those with no occupation. A recent
prison census showed that 31 percent of all prisoners were
unemployed at the time their crimes were committed, or were people
with no occupation.
3. Urbanization and other conditions concerning the distribution
and density of the population, have an influence upon crime. In
general there is more crime in the cities than in the country
districts. The statistics of all civilized countries seem to show
about twice as great a percentage of crime in their large cities as
in the rural districts.
4. Educational conditions have undoubtedly a great influence upon
crime. While education in the sense of school education could never
in itself stamp out crime, still defective educational conditions
greatly increase crime. This is shown sufficiently by the fact that
illiterates are much more liable to commit crime than those who
have a fair education. The defects in our educational conditions
which especially favor the development of crime in certain classes
are, chiefly, lack of facilities for vocational education, lack of
physical education, and lack of specific moral instruction.
The influence of the press as a popular educator must here be
mentioned as one of the important stimuli to crime under modern
conditions. The excessive exploitation of crimes in the modern
sensational press no doubt conduces to increase criminality in
certain classes, for it has been demonstrated that crime is often a
matter of suggestion or imitation.
5. The influence of certain social institutions in producing crime
must be mentioned. Poorer people lack opportunities for wholesome
social recreation, particularly in our large cities. Lacking these,
they resort to the bars, gambling dens, cheap music and dance
halls, and vulgar theatrical entertainments, while their children
have to play in the streets. The influence of all of these
institutions is undoubtedly to spread the epidemic of vice and
crime.
Task 7:
【答案】
A.
1) An incurable nerve disease made her paralyzed.
2) She wanted her husband to assist her suicide. But her husband
could face criminal charges if he
helped her die according to the British law.
3) Judge Silber said that a full court review should decide if Mr.
Pretty can be exempted from
prosecution.
4) Supporters of assisted suicide hailed the ruling, while
opponents decried it.
5) If euthanasia became legal, they would face greater pressure to
commit suicide.
6) The goal of the society is to make euthanasia legal in
Britain.
B.
1) affect，dependent，care，elderly，this kind of way
2) full hearing，full hearing，legislation，safeguards
【原文】
A paralyzed British woman has won the first round in a court battle
to allow her husband to legally assist her suicide. The case has
sparked controversy between opponents and supporters of euthanasia.
Diane Pretty is a 42 year-old British woman who is terminally ill
with a nerve disease that has left her paralyzed. She wants to
commit suicide, but she is physically unable to do so. Therefore,
Mrs. Pretty wants her husband Brian to assist her suicide. However,
prosecutors have told the couple Mr. Pretty could face criminal
charges if he helps her die. Against that backdrop, the Prettys
went to London High Court on Friday to seek judicial relief.
Judge Stephen Silber granted Mrs. Pretty an initial victory, saying
a full court review should decide if Mr. Pretty can be exempted
from prosecution. Mrs. Pretty, sitting in her wheelchair, burst
into tears upon hearing Judge Silber's decision. Outside the court,
supporters of assisted suicide hailed the ruling, while opponents
of euthanasia decried it.
Paul Tully leads a campaign against abortion and euthanasia. He
fears that if Britain establishes the right to die, pressure will
mount on the terminally ill to commit suicide. 'What they are
trying to achieve could affect thousands of other people who are
entirely dependent on others for their care - people who are very
elderly, with degenerative diseases,' he said. 'There are many,
many people around the country who are suffering in this kind of
way.'
Deborah Annetts represents the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, which
supports the Pretty's court battle. She says the eventual goal is
to get Britain to legalize assisted suicide. 'This is about an
individual, Diane, making a decision about when she's had enough
suffering,' she said. 'What we would say is, if this goes all the
way through for a full hearing and we are successful for that full
hearing, we would ask the government to put in place legislation
with appropriate safeguards as the Dutch have.' The debate will
resume at the next court hearing, expected in about one
month.
Task 8:
【答案】
A.
1) She is a poor white girl, and the Chief Witness in the
case.
2) He is accused of beating and raping Ewell.
3) The evidence suggests that Mayella Ewell was beaten savagely by
someone with his left hand. However, Tom Robinson's left arm is
useless.
4) She tempted and kissed Tom Robinson, a black man. Thus she broke
the rigid code in her family and community. She wants to conceal
her offense by destroying Tom.
5) They believe that all Negroes lie; all Negroes are basically
immoral beings; all Negroes are not to be trusted around white
women.
6) He is an upright man who represents conscience and morality in
the society. He is also a good lawyer. In his strong lecture, he
gives a lesson to everyone in the courtroom. He criticizes them for
their ignorance, prejudice and hypocrisy. This needs courage, but
to Atticus, it is worth it because the truth will be told.
7) In the speech, Finch gives similar idea in these words:
In our courts, all men are created equal. I'm no idealist to
believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and of our jury
system. That's no ideal to me. That is a living, working
reality!
Here he argues that the jury system itself cannot guarantee the
fairness and objectivity of court decisions. Only when all the
members of the society are aware that all men are created equal can
such, prejudice, discrimination and injustice be eliminated.
B.
1) somebody in this courtroom
2) created equal，no idealist，integrity，jury，no ideal，living,
working reality
【原文】
To begin with, this case should never have come to trial. The State
has not produced one iota of medical evidence that the crime Tom
Robinson is charged with ever took place. It has relied instead
upon the testimony of two witnesses whose evidence has not only
been called into serious question on cross examination, but has
been flatly contradicted by the defendant. Now there is
circumstantial evidence to indicate that Mayella Ewell was beaten
savagely by someone who led, almost exclusively, with his left
[hand]. And Tom Robinson now sits before you, having taken 'The
Oath' with the only good hand he possesses—his right.
I have nothing but pity in my heart for the Chief Witness for the
State. She is the victim of cruel poverty and ignorance. But, my
pity does not extend so far as to her putting a man's life at
stake, which she has done in an effort to get rid of her own guilt.
Now I say 'guilt,' gentlemen, because it was guilt that motivated
her. She's committed no crime. She has merely broken a rigid and
time-honored code of our society, a code so severe that whoever
breaks it is hounded from our midst as unfit to live with. She must
destroy the evidence of her offense. But, what was the evidence of
her offense? Tom Robinson, a human being. She must put Tom Robinson
away from her. Tom Robinson was to her a daily reminder of what she
did. Now what did she do? She tempted a negro. She was white and
she tempted a negro. She did something that in our society is
unspeakable: She kissed a black man. Not an old uncle, but a
strong, young negro man. No code mattered to her before she broke
it, but it came crashing down on her afterwards.
The witnesses for the State, with the exception of the sheriff of
Lincoln County, have presented themselves to you gentlemen—to this
Court—in the cynical confidence that their testimony would not be
doubted; confident that you gentlemen would go along with them on
the assumption, the evil assumption, that all negroes lie; all
negroes are basically immoral beings; all negro men are not to be
trusted around our women, an assumption that one associates with
minds of their caliber, and which is in itself, gentlemen, a
lie—which I do not need to point out to you.
And so, a quiet, humble, respectable negro, who has had the
unmitigated temerity to feel sorry for a white woman, has had to
put his word against two white peoples. The defendant is not
guilty. But somebody in this courtroom is.
Now, gentlemen, in this country our courts are the great levelers.
In our courts, all men are created equal. I'm no idealist to
believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and of our jury
system. That's no ideal to me. That is a living, working
reality!
Now I am confident that you gentlemen will review without passion
the evidence that you have heard, come to a decision, and restore
this man to his family.
In the name of God, do your duty. In the name of God, believe Tom
Robinson.
