Кафедра Общегуманитарных дисциплин	Иностранный язык в сфере юриспруденции (английский)
Задание на контрольную работу
Утверждено протоколом заседания кафедры 23.12.2011

Направление:	Юриспруденция
Форма обучения:	заочная
Срок обучения:	5 лет	3 г
Семестр:	1	6

Таблица для определения студентом своего

варианта и номера контрольного задания

(5 лет и 3 года обучения)

Номер варианта	Предназначен для студента, фамилия которого начинается на букву
1	А, Б, В, Г, Д, Е, Ч
2	Ж, З, И, К, Л,Ш
3	М, Н, О, П, Р, С, Щ
4	Т, У, Ф Х, Ц, Э, Ю, Я

Контрольная работа № 1
Variant 1

1. 
   Read the text and answer the following questions.
   

1. Why was Hugh Boggs worried?

2. Where was his bicycle picked up?

3. When did he leave it?

His name and address was on the wheel

Hugh Boggs was worried all day. In the morning he received a letter from the police. They asked him to call at the station. Hugh couldn't understand why the police wanted him. He didn't do anything wrong. It was perhaps a mistake.

At the police station a policeman told him that his bicycle had been found. It was picked up in the hills in Wales about a hundred miles away. His name and address were written on the wheel.

The bicycle was sent to his home by train. Hugh was very much surprised when he heard the news. He was amused, too, because it was his old broken bicycle he had left behind last summer when returning to town after his holidays. Now when he receives his bike, he will have to think how to get rid of it again.
II. Read and translate the following text.

Protecting the rights of the accused

Dealing with crime and criminals poses a serious challenge to democratic political systems. On the one hand, society must protect itself against criminals. At the same time, individual rights must be preserved. Justice in a democracy means protecting the innocent from government police power as well as punishing the guilty.

To deal with this challenge, the Founders of the US Constitution provided for a system of justice designed to guard the rights of the accused as well as the rights of society. Laws were to be strictly interpreted, trial

---

procedures fair and impartial, and punishments reasonable. Later, the Fourteenth Amendment further protected the rights of the accused.

The police need evidence to accuse people of committing crimes, but getting evidence often requires searching people or their homes, cars, or offices. To protect the innocent, the Fourth Amendment* guarantees the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, and papers, against unreasonable searches and seizures. What constitutes unreasonable searches and seizures? No precise definition has been made, so the courts have dealt with Fourth Amendment issues on a case-by-case basis.

Today the police must state under oath that they have probable cause to suspect someone of committing a crime. Then they must obtain a warrant from a court official before searching for evidence or making an arrest. The warrant must describe the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.

Before 1980, 23 states had search laws that permitted police to enter a home without a warrant if they had probable cause to believe that the occupant had committed a felony, or major crime, but in 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that, except in a life-threatening emergency, the Fourth Amendment forbids searching a home without a warrant.
*FourthAmendment – Ратифицирована 15 декабря 1791г. Поправка гласит: «Право народа на гарантии неприкосновенности личности, жилища, бумаг и имущества от необоснованных обысков и арестов не должно нарушаться . и никакие ордера не должны выдаваться иначе как при достаточных к тому основаниях, подтвержденных присягой или заявлением, и с подробным описанием места, подлежащего обыску, и лиц или предметов, подлежащих аресту».
III. Answer the questions on the text.

1. 
   How does a democracy ensure the administration of justice?
   
2. 
   How can the police arrest a person they suspect?
   
3. 
   What is the Fourth Amendment about?
   

IV. Write out the true statements according to the text.

1. 
   Justice in a democracy means protecting the innocent from government police power as well as punishing the guilty.
   
2. 
   Later, the Fourteenth Amendment further protected the rights of the innocent.
   
3. 
   Getting evidence often requires searching people or their homes, cars, or offices.
   
4. 
   Today the police must not state under oath that they have probable cause to suspect someone of committing a crime.
   
5. 
   The warrant must describe the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.
   
6. 
   In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that, except in a life-threatening emergency, the Fourth Amendment forbids searching a home without a warrant.
   

V. Match English words and word combinations with their Russian equivalents.

1. seizure of things	a. ордер на обыск
2. to protect the innocent	b. обвинять людей
3. a criminal	c. необоснованный обыск
4. fair trial procedure	d. совершать преступление
5. punishment	e. преступник
6. felony	f. защищать невиновного
7. unreasonable search	g. наложение ареста на имущество
8. to accuse people	h. справедливая процедура судопроизводства
9. to commit a crime	i. наказание
10. warrant	j. тяжкое уголовное преступление

---

VI. Write a composition on topic “Society must protect itself against criminals”.

Variant 2
I. Read the text and answer the following questions.
1. What was the verdict for the students?

2. When was the diplomat kidnapped?

3. What did the prosecution say about him?
Two students convicted of diplomat's murder
Two students who took part in the killing in February last year of an Indian diplomat, Mr. Ravindra Mhatre, were convicted of murder at Birmingham Crown Court.

Mohammed Riaz, aged 23, a student, of Jarrom Street, Leicester, and Abdul Raja, aged 21, a student, of rue de la Butte, Blauchet, Paris, both Kashmiris, were convicted on a majority verdict of eleven to one.

They were remanded in custody for sentencing with four others who have admitted taking part in the kidnap­ping plot.

The court heard how Mr. Mhatre, the assistant com­missioner at the Indian High Commission in Birmingham, was kidnapped as he returned to his home in Bartley Green, on the outskirts of city.

He was held prisoner in Birmingham for three days before being driven to a lane in Leicestershire, where he was shot three times at point-blank range.

Mr. Igor Judge, QC, for the prosecution, said: «This happened to a man with no known enemies. It happened to a man who had never caused offence to the defendants or any of those involved in the problems thousands of miles away».
II. Read and translate the following text.
Cruel and unusual punishment
The Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment," the only constitutional provision specifically limiting penalties in criminal cases. The US Supreme Court* has rarely used this provision. For example, in 1981 the Court ruled that putting two prisoners in a cell built for one is not cruel and unusual punishment.

There is a great controversy, however, over the death penalty. During the 1970s the Supreme Court handed down several decisions on the constitutionality of the death penalty. In 1972, the Court ruled that capital punishment as then administered was not constitutional. The Court found the death penalty was being imposed in apparently arbitrary ways for a wide variety of crimes and mainly on African Americans and poor people. This decision warned the states that the death penalty needed clarification. Thirty-five states responded with new death penalty laws. These laws took two approaches. North Carolina and some other states made the death penalty mandatory for certain crimes. In this way, they hoped to eliminate arbitrary decisions. It is argued, however, that such laws failed to take into consideration the specifics of a crime and any possible mitigating circumstances.

Georgia and several other states took a different approach. They established new procedures for trials and appeals designed to reduce arbitrary decisions and racial prejudice in imposing the death penalty. In one case the Court ruled that under adequate guidelines the death penalty does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The Court stated, "Capital punishment is an expression of society's outrage. It is an extreme sanction, suitable to the most extreme of crimes."
*USSupremeCourt – Верховный суд США, предусмотренный разделом 1 статьи III Конституции США. Является высшей судебной инстанцией для дел федеральной юрисдикции и для большинства дел, находящихся в юрисдикции штатов. Первоначально этот единственный судебный орган, о котором непосредственно говорится в Конституции, создавался для рассмотрения дел, касающихся послов, посланников и консулов, а также таких дел, стороной в которых является штат. Ныне Верховный суд является апелляционной инстанцией, а также занимается официальным толкованием законов и конституционных положений. Суд также принимает к рассмотрению дела по собственному усмотрению. Создан в 1790 г. Состоит из Председателя Верховного суда и 8 судей. Должность судей Верховного суда пожизненная, однако они могут подавать в отставку по достижении 70-летнего возраста. Кворум составляют 6 судей.

---

III. Answer the questions on the text

1. 
   Why is there a great controversy over the death penalty in America?
   
2. 
   What are the death penalty laws in the US nowadays?
   
3. 
   Do you think capital punishment should be used in a democratic state?
   

IV. Write out the true sentences according to the text.

1. 
   The Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment.
   
2. 
   There is no controversy over the death penalty.
   
3. 
   In 1972, the Court ruled that capital punishment as then administered was constitutional.
   
4. 
   Georgia and several other states took the same approach.
   
5. 
   In one case the Court ruled that under adequate guidelines the death penalty does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
   

V. Match English words and word combinations with their Russian equivalents.

1. constitutional provision	a. смертная казнь
2. US Supreme Court	b. расовые предрассудки
3. death penalty	c. смягчающие обстоятельства
4. to impose punishment	d. конституционное положение
5.an approach	e. Верховный суд США
6. trial procedure	f. тюремная камера
7. mitigating circumstances	g. заключенный
8. racial prejudice	h. подход (к решению проблемы)
9. prisoner	i. налагать наказание
10. cell	j. процедура судопроизводства

VI. Write a composition on topic “Death penalty. For and against”.

Variant 3
I. Read the text and answer the following questions.
1. Why did Mr. Newbery shoot?

2. What was the judgement?

3. What did the judgement cause?

4. Was Mr. Newbery right, trying to defend himself?
82-year-old man who shot burglar must pay him $ 4000
An 82-year-old man who shot a burglar who was trying to break into his allotment shed was ordered to pay him $ 4000 damages yesterday. Ted Newberey had been sleeping in a shed to try to stop vandals destroying his allotment. He fired through a hole in the door when he heard voices outside. Mark Revill, 28, was hit in the chest and arm as he and another man tried to smash their way into the shed.

They had gone there to steal, knowing that the pensioner had a television set and a washing machine in the shed.

Mr Newbery had slept in the shed every night for four years because of vandalism, the court was told by the defense. That night, he heard a loud banging on the door and a voice saying: «If the old man's in there, we'll do him». He was absolutely terrified, and fired the gun in self-defense. As the result of the incident, Mr Revill lost two fingers, and has partially lost the use of one arm.

Mr Justice Rougier ruled that Mr. Newbery had acted out of all proportion to the threat. He had not acted in panic, but had planned his response in advance, and it had been reckless to shoot the shotgun through a hole in the door, while not being able to see what he was shooting at. Mr Justice Rougier awarded Revill $4000 for his injuries and loss of earnings.

---

The judgement coursed an immediate public outcry. Tim Molloney the Mayor of Erewash, launched an appeal to raise money to pay Mr Newbery's bill, and started the fund with a contribution of $100. Since then, money has been pouring in from all over the country. A London restaurateur was one of the dozens to call «The Times» to express his anger over the affair. Husseyin Ozer, 42, said he would sell his Rolex watch to pay the award. «I'm outraged. The old saying that an Englishman's home is his castle doesn't seem to be true any more», he said.
II. Read and translate the following text.
Free press and fair trial
In recent years the First Amendment right of a free press and the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial have sometimes conflicted. Does the press have the right to publish information that might influence the outcome of a trial? Can courts issue orders that limit news gathering in order to increase the chances of a fair trial? Do reporters have the right to withhold sources of information that may be important to a trial?

Before and during a trial, news stories about the crime can make it difficult to secure a jury capable of fairly deciding the case. In 1954, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Samuel H. Sheppard, for just such reasons.

A prominent Cleveland physician, Sheppard was convicted of killing his wife. The case had attracted sensational press coverage. Pretrial news reports practically called Sheppard guilty. During the trial reporters interviewed witnesses and published information damaging to Sheppard.

The Supreme Court ruled that press coverage had interfered with Sheppard's right to a fair trial. Sheppard was later found not guilty. In the Sheppard decision, the Court described several measures judges might take to restrain press coverage of a trial. These included: reducing pretrial publicity; limiting the number of reporters in the courtroom; placing controls on reporters' conduct in the courtroom; isolating witnesses and jurors from the press; and having the jury sequestered, or held in custody, until the trial is over.

On the other hand, in 1972, the Supreme Court ruled the First Amendment does not give special privileges to news reporters. Reporters, the Court said, "like other citizens, must respond to relevant questions put to them in the course of investigation or criminal trial." The Court added that any special exemptions must come from Congress and the states.
*SixthAmendment – Шестая Поправка к Конституции США. Ратифицирована 15 декабря 1791г. Предусматривает право обвиняемого на «безотлагательное и публичное разбирательство дела беспристрастным судом присяжных в суде по месту совершения преступления и право на помощь адвоката для своей защиты».
III. Answer the questions on the text.

1. 
   In what way does the right of a free press conflict with the right of a fair trial?
   
2. 
   Why did the Court overturn the conviction of Samuel H. Sheppard?
   
3. 
   What measures can a judge take to restrain press coverage of a trial?
   

IV. Write out the true sentences according to the text.

1. 
   In recent years the First Amendment right of a free press and the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial have sometimes conflicted.
   
2. 
   A prominent Cleveland physician, Sheppard was convicted of assaulting his wife.
   
3. 
   The Supreme Court ruled that press coverage had not interfered with Sheppard's right to a fair trial.
   
4. 
   In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled the First Amendment gives special privileges to news reporters.
   

V. Match English words and word combinations with their Russian equivalents.

---

Смотрите также файлы

• Суммативное оценивание за раздел Программирование алгоритмов на языке Python.docx

• Критерии распределения новорождённых детей по группам риска.doc

• Методические разработки по ппс го. Развернутый план занятия.docx

• Решение Статья 65 тк рф. При устройстве на работу предъявляются следующие документы паспорт, или иной документ удостоверяющий личность.rtf

• Урок по биологии и математике по теме Лист. Внешнее строение листа.docx