Unit 11

Task 1:

【原文】

1)"In fact," said the attorney with sarcasm, "you were so frightened at the rune mat you honestly cannot testify whether it was an automobile or something resembling an automobile that struck you."

"Well," replied the plaintiff "I can only say that I was struck by the resemblance."

2) And the other story from that area is about the native who noticed the epitaph on a tombstone:

"Here Lies a Lawyer and an Honest Man."

"Mighty small grave for two men," commented the native.

3) This is supposed to have happened in a Western courtroom. One lawyer rose and shouted that his opponent was a crook, a shyster and a disgrace to the legal profession. The opposing attorney responded that the first was guiltier than his client and should be the one on trial.

The judge calmly noted: "Now that both of the learned counsels have identified themselves, let us proceed with this case."

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.