Crimes punishments people legal processes

2Use words and phrases from 1 to complete these sentences.

a What’s the difference between the two? Well, slander is when you say something about someone which isn’t true. _______ is when you publish it, and that’s when people generally take action.

b If a person is on trial for murder the press can’t refer to them as ‘the murder’. They have to say ‘_______‘.

cYou’re guilty of _______ when you didn’t kill the victim deliberately.

d You _______ someone if you want to claim money from them because they have harmed you in some way.

e The jury has to listen to the case, _______ and then _______.

fA _______ , means that you don’t actually have to go to prison unless you commit another crime.

g ‘_______’ is a more formal term for a legal adviser.

h _______ can be anything from teaching kids to play football to cutting the grass. Obviously, it’s not paid.

3Choose another three words or phrases from 1 and write three sentences like the ones above. Give them to a partner to complete.

Crime & punishment

1Put the crimes below in order of seriousness. Decide on the punishment you think a person guilty of each crime should get.

2Compare your answers with a partner.

3Nine people were asked what punishment they would give people guilty of the above crimes.

Well, I think if you do something like go into somebody’s garden without asking them first, then, then I think that it’s not too bad so you shouldn’t, you shouldn’t be punished for it, but I really think that you should go and say sorry.

Well, I suppose it’s not really an offence is it, not, not a serious offence? I just think people do it without thinking. Um, they see other people do it so they do it themselves and then you end up with a really filthy street. People should think more about the environment, about their surroundings and perhaps rather than punishing them they should, they should have a deterrent fine or, or, you know, enough of a fine to make them think twice about doing it again, frankly.

Well, let’s be honest, it’s the most serious thing you can ever do, isn’t it? I mean it’s the most brutal thing you can ever do and I personally think it should be an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. If you’re going to do this kind of thing, you know, you deserve what you get.

Well, my mother always said that when she was a little girl, she had her mouth washed out with soap and water and I think that is still the best way. I really do.

Urn, I’m not really sure to be honest. Er, I think, ban, a ban I think. Er, six months, a year depending on how much you’ve had I suppose, but I don’t really have a strong opinion about it.

I think give the person a bucket and a cloth and make them scrape the stuff off the walls themselves. I think it’s really important. You have to see the consequences of your actions and be made to fix up your own mess. Other than that, maybe give them art classes, so they do it properly.

Well, I think this is, you know, a really violent theft. You know, it’s a dreadful crime and I think you should be quite heavily punished for it really. Urn, I think you should get at least fifteen years. I mean, this might act as a deterrent, especially for younger people thinking that it’s just a bit of fun and, um, it’s maybe an easy way of getting money.

Well, first of all I think the damage these things do should not be underestimated. This is in no way a nuisance crime. It is extremely, extremely serious. It can have worldwide effects. It can lose businesses and individuals millions of pounds and I think the punishment should reflect this. It’s a difficult one because I think perhaps prison is too harsh but perhaps we should consider community service. I mean, a lot of these people that commit this kind of crime are obviously extremely talented and have a lot of knowledge and maybe that could be put to better use. Or perhaps a large fine. Er, gosh, how much I don’t know, but that would be decided by the courts, but I think that would certainly make these criminals, because that’s what they are, think twice about doing it again.

Well, I think it should be imprisonment for quite a long time because this is a crime that can also involve torture and can also involve murder as well, so it is a very serious crime and it can do an enormous amount of damage to the victim if they survive and to the victim’s family, so I think it’s quite a serious offence.

4Read and answer these questions.

a Which crime is each person talking about?

b Which speaker does not refer to one of the crimes above?

c What punishment do the speakers suggest?

d Which punishments do you agree with? Do you disagree with any of them? Why?

Discussion

1Work in small groups and discuss these questions.

aDo you think punishment is an effective deterrent to crime? If yes, which kind of punishment do you think is most effective? If not, how would you prevent crime?

b Do you think crime is ever justifiable?

2Read the cases below and discuss the questions that follow each one.

Case 1

a What is the driver guilty of, if anything?
b Who should pay for the pedestrian’s medical expenses?
c Who should pay for the damage done to the car?

Case 2

Should the footballer pay? Why/Why not?

Case 3

Should Bob pay for Joe’s taxi expenses? Why/Why not?

Text B

Legal Anecdotes

1 Read the anecdote below and decide which is the best title for it.

aIt pays to do your homework

bHonesty is the best policy

cCrime doesn’t pay

A prominent Canberra barrister, Ian Byrne, appeared for an Italian who was seeking worker’s compensation for an injury which he claimed he received at work.

It was alleged on his behalf that he had difficulty in moving, bending and even walking. He could not lift any heavy article, nor could he indulge in his hobbies of gardening and tennis. So severe was the injury that he was practically housebound.

Prior to the trial the respondent insurance company engaged a loss assessor to follow the applicant Italian, photograph him when he was unaware, and report with a view to giving evidence at the trial.

Eventually the application came on for hearing. Ian Byrne put his client (whom I shall call Bruno) in the witness box. He told his story of pain and suffering. He showed that he had severe limitation of movement and could not bend or carry weights because of his unfortunate injury.

At the end of his examination Ian Byrne’s opponent, a somewhat inexperienced Counsel, sprang to his feet, enthusiasm gleaming in his eyes, and said ‘Your Worship, I have here nearly 350 metres of film which shows this man Bruno bricklaying, lifting weights, concreting, vaulting a fence, working on his own house and even running. I would ask leave of Your Worship to run the film before I begin to cross-examine the applicant.’

The film was then run. It showed the applicant running, making a brick wall, carrying wheelbarrow loads of bricks, picking up slabs of concrete, climbing up and down ladders, digging in the garden and running behind a lawnmower. Further, it depicted the applicant’s home and his small truck with his name clearly marked on the door, and also showed him wearing a red cardigan which he was wearing in the witness box. At the finish of the screening the enthusiastic Counsel for the insurance company commenced his cross-examination.

‘You saw that film?’

‘Yes,’ said Bruno.

‘There is nothing wrong with your back at all, is there?’

‘Yes,’ said Bruno. ‘Everything that I said before is true. That was not me

in the picture. That was my brother.’

‘But,’ exploded Counsel. ‘That was your house, wasn’t it?’

‘Yeah,’ said Bruno.

‘And the same cardigan you’ve got on today is the one shown in the

film?’

‘Yeah,’ said Bruno, ‘I lent it to my brother. He is very good to me. He

helps me round the house, he paints, he cements the paths, he mows the lawns.’

‘But,’ said learned Counsel, ‘His Worship has seen the film and he knows

it is you.’

‘It is not me. It’s my brother.’

In due course Ian Byrne called the brother, and when he walked into

Court it was obvious to all that he was the identical twin of the applicant; and after a few questions it was obvious that he was the one in the film doing all the physical acts.

The angry Counsel for the defendant had the applicant recalled and said to

him, ‘You have tried to deceive the Court. You and your brother knew he was being photographed.’

‘Yes,’ said the applicant ‘we thought it was funny.’

(From The Oxford Book Of Legal Anecdotes)

2 Work with a partner and answer these questions.

aWhy was Bruno in court?
bWhy was he photographed?
cWhat didn’t the lawyer who was representing the insurance company

know?
dHow do you think he felt when Bruno’s brother walked into the courtroom?

3 The anecdote contains a lot of formal vocabulary. Look back at the text and find more formal words or phrases with these meanings.

Over to you

Using the information and facts from the Unit discuss the following.

· Greater public understanding of the crime problem is important for the apprehension and conviction of criminals, their rehabilitation, and the prevention of crime.

· Awareness by the criminal of a high probability of arrest is the most effective deterrent to crime.

· The emotional problems of convicts should be given special consideration.

· Crime stems from the breakdown of traditional social norms.

· Family and social control are the most effective means of crime prevention.

· In recent years public has demanded longer and hasher sentences for offenders.

Date: 2015-12-24; view: 1879