Diversion

Cases can be "diverted" out of the criminal justice system. Defendants whose cases are diverted typically have to participate in a treatment or rehabilitation program. Since criminal charges are normally dropped when a defendant successfully completes a diversion program, diversion allows defendants to escape the stigma of a criminal conviction.

Eligibility for diversion varies from one locality to another. Diversion programs are most often available to defendants charges with misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies involving drugs or alcohol. In some jurisdictions, diversion may be available to defendants charged with domestic violence, child abuse or neglect, traffic-related offenses or even writing bad checks.

2. Make a list of different ways of punishment for crimes and think of possible disadvantages of each way.

3. Find in the text the English equivalents for the following law terms. Explain their meaning in English.

-условное освобождение;

-приговор с установленным сроком заключения/без установленного срока заключения;

-заключенный;

-приговор с отсрочкой исполнения;

-курс лечения от наркозависимости;

-отбывать срок;

-хранение наркотиков;

-вождение в нетрезвом состоянии;

-возмещение убытков;

-приобретенный незаконным способом;

-прекратить дело;

-мировая сделка;

-иметь уголовное прошлое;

-конфискация;

-выполнение работ на общественное благо;

-насилие в семье.

4. Using the text analyze the valency of the following words: a sentence; to sentence; a charge; to charge; a victim; a probation.

2. 1. Read the texts. Think of a different way to entitle them.

A. Judges Write Creative Sentences.

The defendant before Judge Larry Standley in Harris County, Texas, criminal court in January had slapped his wife on New Year's Eve. The defense and the prosecutor had agreed on a punishment. Standley was about to sign off on it when, on impulse, he tacked on another condition: yoga class.

Then came the uproar. CNN wanted an interview. Newspapers worldwide wrote about the yoga judge. Hate mail arrived from a North Carolina man who accused him of promoting Buddhism.

Standley stands by his sentence. He says he hopes the combination of traditional punishment and a mind- and body-stretching yoga class will help the man control his behavior. And, he says, it certainly can't hurt.

At a time when many of the nation's judges feel hamstrung by proscribed sentencing guidelines, some judges still take advantage of the leeway they have. Though a number of judges are just reacting to the guidelines, others are imposing odd sentences out of frustration with repeat offenders or as a way to avoid sending small-time criminals to overcrowded jails. Others do it simply because they can. Creative sentences, which vary from wacky to touchy-feely to downright mean, are tacked on to jail time, community service and probation. Many are controversial.

Sentencing is most restrictive at the federal level, where judges tally up the offenses and use a formula set by Congress to determine prison time. Felony and misdemeanor judges in every state have legal constraints on sentences, but judge in some states have leeway to add conditions. Municipal courts, which generally handle traffic and misdemeanor cases, typically leave the most room for creativity.

Judges such as Standley are bucking a trend of the past decade to stiffen sentences and make punishment more uniform. And state legislatures and sentencing commissions, faced with budget deficits and overcrowded prisons, are taking notice. In the past three years, at least a dozen states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan and Utah, have begun to examine and revamp sentencing policies.

B. Drawing distinctions

No one is sure whether the alternatives work better than plain old time in the slammer. Advocates for sentencing reform say an outlandish or highly embarrassing sentence might deepen an offender's rage and lead to another crime. A number of studies are underway to determine whether straying from the norm reduces crime.

Among examples:

• People convicted of domestic violence or fighting by Municipal Judge Frances Gallegos in Santa Fe are often sentenced to a twice-a-week, New Age anger-management class held in the courthouse lobby. In the lobby, transformed with candles, mirrors and aromatherapy, offenders experience tai chi, meditation, acupuncture and Eastern philosophy as a means of controlling rage. Gallegos calls her methods "therapeutic jurisprudence" and says she turned to the novel approach when she became dismayed by the number of repeat offenders returning to her courtroom.

• Municipal Judge David Hostetler of Coshocton, Ohio, this month ordered a man to jog for an hour every other day around the block where the jail is located. The man had run away from police after a traffic accident. Hostetler routinely turns to alternative punishments to keep offenders out of an overcrowded local jail. He received worldwide attention in 2001 when he ordered two men to dress in women's clothing and walk down Main Street as a sentence for throwing beer bottles at a car and taunting a woman. The Ohio Legislature has enacted a law that allows judges to choose alternative punishments if they are related to the crime.

Judges who choose alternative sentences say they focus on first-time offenders. They say they want to teach the offenders a lesson without ruining their lives with jail or prison time.

C. Sentences often criticized

The sentences are often controversial, such as when Erwin sentenced a divorced man convicted of killing a girl in a car accident to house arrest so he could keep working and support his three kids. An editorial in the local newspaper "didn't praise me, but they didn't damn me either," Erwin says.

Gallegos of Santa Fe, who is running for re-election, says she is "criticized and ridiculed" as coddling criminals.

"If I did not have the latitude that I do to create these programs to find different solutions to all the social problems I see, I wouldn't want to be here," she says. "It's really been kind of a mission for me. I'm maybe the most notorious judge in the state of New Mexico."

Criminal defense attorney Michael Steven Sherman of Wexford, Pa., last month asked a Butler County judge to reconsider making his client carry a photograph of the man she killed in a car accident after his family chose a photograph of the man in his coffin.

"We believe it was cruel and morbid," Sherman says. "In the context of the case, it was never envisioned it would be someone in a coffin."

His client, Jennifer Langston, pleaded guilty in September to vehicular manslaughter and agreed to carry a photograph of the victim: teacher and coach Glenn Clark. Clark's mother, Rosellen Moller, 64, of Greenville, Pa., selected the coffin photograph because she felt that Langston did not realize the impact she'd had on their family. Moller says the 30-day jail sentence is an insult to her son and his wife, Annette, who was pregnant at the time of the accident on June 15, 2002, and remains in a coma.

"That's not even a slap on the wrist," Moller says. "(Langston) didn't get it. She just didn't get what she had done. We thought that if every once in a while she saw his picture, she just might."

2. Explain and translate the underlined words and word combinations. Use them in sentences of your own.

3. Using the text dwell upon the following:

1. The reasons for imposing nontraditional sentences;

2. The attitude of the public to the innovations in sentencing;

3. Advantages and disadvantages of imposing creative sentences.

4. Think of some other nontraditional sentences.

3. 1. Study the following text.

Capital Punishment: the Ethical Debate.

A highly controversial topic that has caught many people’s attention for years now and still continues to do so is capital punishment. Is it or is it not right to kill someone who has killed another human being? Does this type of punishment act as a deterrent to other would be killers, or are we telling this to ourselves to justify the revenge? The questions continue to escalate, yet there’re no answers.  

The retentionist is the name given to those who support capital punishment. This group consists of law enforcement officials, judges and district attorneys. The abolitionists - those who oppose capital punishment – are mainly humanitarian organizations, clergymen and social scientists. Both continue to argue their points and try to make the courts hear their voices. Both sides make valid points and have strong arguments in opposition to their opponents’ views.

Killing someone who killed another person is certainly not a new concept. In primitive societies a murderer was killed by a member of the victim’s family and the state had no part in it. In a modern society capital punishment was being used for a large number of crimes. Due to the indiscriminate application individuals began to question the use of the death penalty.

The major purposes of punishment, historically, have been retribution, expiation, deterrence, reformation, and social defense. Throughout history, an eye for an eye, general deterrence of crime by exemplary punishment and specific deterrence of an individual offender, reformation of the individual and protection of society by detaining or imprisoning offenders have been the principal rationales for the disposition of criminal offenders. These views have not changed much. The areas of debate were narrowed down into two categories. The two categories are (1) in terms of giving people what they deserve, and (2) in terms of its desirable consequences. The first category includes retributive theories of punishment, the second includes preventive, deterrent and reformative theories.

1. The first category, retribution, is defined as punishment given in return for some crime. It goes back to the eye for an eye analogy mentioned above. A crime is an act of aggression which is met with counter aggression. Many retentionists argue that some murderers leave prison on parole and are put back in society to kill again, and even imprisoned for life they may kill in prison.

While such views are worthy of debate, abolitionists argue that no empirical research can tell us if the argument is correct. Abolitionists hold the view that "every human life has dignity and worth." They believe that life imprisonment without possibility of parole is sufficient punishment.

Capital punishment is morally unacceptable in today’s world according to abolitionists. Different religions have different views on the issue, but they tend to agree that killing a human being, even the one who has taken the life of another person, is not justifiable.

2. The second category which includes preventive, deterrent and reformative theories, is even more controversial. The preventive view of punishment focuses on the idea that we should punish to ensure that offenders do not repeat their offense. It is one of the most common justifications for capital punishment, apart from deterrence which believes that punishment is necessary in order to keep others from committing similar offenses. Both of these theories aim at the reduction of crime.

The question that arises, and becomes the primary focus of the capital punishment debate, is: Does capital punishment succeed in deterring potential murderers?

Retentionists believe that the repeal of the capital punishment laws would unleash criminals now restrained by the fear of execution. Abolitionists deny the deterrent value of the death penalty. They believe that capital offenses tend to be committed under impulse rather than after the calculated planning, therefore, the deterrent case has no validity. Their belief is that murderers are not likely to think of the consequences before they act.

Abolitionists point out that capital punishment interferes with efficient administration of justice and without the death sentence the jury is more likely to convict. Besides cases of capital punishment can take several years and the appeals are costly. According to the Department of Justice reports 42% of all death-row inmates are removed from death row, primarily due to convictions/sentence reversals and commutation. This means that almost half of the convictions that resulted in the death penalty had serious constitutional flaws. This shows capital punishment is "a waste of money and resources in producing what turns out to be counterfeit death sentences in almost one out of every two instances ."

As presented above the arguments both for and against capital punishment are very strong. Each side has several valid points that must be considered by states when deciding to enforce the capital punishment laws. The ethical debate continues and the answers do not seem to be clear.

2. Give Russian equivalents for the underlined words and word combinations.

3. a) Use the material of the text to make a list of arguments for and against the death penalty. Add some arguments of your own.

b) Use the arguments in a dialogue discussion one of you acting as a proponent of the death penalty and the other being against it.

c) Get prepared with the speech either in favor or against the death penalty in Russia. Present your speech in a group discussion.

IV. 1. Conduct a survey in your group on the attitude to the problems of crime and punishment. Before conducting the survey formulate open-ended questions which will help you find out the opinion of the society on the following:

1. What is the primary justification for sentencing an offender (deterrence, punishment, reformation, social defense)?

2. Are there any other ways ( apart from incapacitation) to prevent crimes?

3. What is the attitude of the society to the death penalty? For what felonies? Is it justifiable?

4. Does your group hold hope for rehabilitation of an offender?

Add some points of your own to your survey.

2. Get acquainted with the results of the public opinion polls in the USA and compare the results with your group-mates’ answers. Comment on possible differences. Before you start reading the article below make sure you know the following words and word combinations:

the endorsement of punishment;

incapacitation;

too easy on;

soft spot for;

dismissed out of hand;

career criminal;

no-nonsense police tactics;

stark conclusion.

Public Opinion

Public opinion strongly supports the increased use of prisons to give criminals their just desserts. The endorsement of punishment is relatively uniform across all groups. More than three-quarters of the public see punishment as the primary justification for sentencing. More than 70% believe that incapacitation is the only sure way to prevent future crimes, and more than three-quarters believe that the courts are too easy on criminals. Three-quarters favor the death penalty for murder.

Still, the public holds out some hope for rehabilitation, too. About 60 % express hope that rehabilitative services like psychological counseling, training and education inside prison will correct personal shortcomings. Such sentiments are more likely to be expressed on behalf of young offenders than adults, and by nonwhite respondents. In a national poll, the Los Angeles Times asked, "Where does government need to make a greater effort these days: in trying to rehabilitate criminals who commit violent crimes or in trying to punish and put away criminals who commit violent crimes?" The largest group, 49 %, answered “punish”, 32 % said “rehabilitate”, 8 % said "both, equally," and the remaining 11 % said they didn't know or offered another solution.

The public's soft spot for rehabilitation cannot be dismissed out of hand. Despite continuing calls for a "better way," what criminals need most is evidence that their crimes do not pay. Punishment works. Among other virtues, it gives the convicted a major incentive to reform. Even career criminals often give up crime because they don't want to go back to prison. The most successful remedy, if it were economical, would impose unpleasantness on offenders every time they harmed others; predatory action invariably would produce bad consequences. The old prescription that punishment be swift, certain and severe is affirmed by modern social science.

When expected punishment plunged during the 1960s and 1970s, crime rose astronomically. When expected punishment began rising in the 1980s and 1990s, crime leveled off and began falling. With the well-publicized success of no-nonsense police tactics in New York City, fewer observers today doubt that the criminal justice system can have a major impact on crime.

Economist Gordon Tullock's stark conclusion remains valid today: "We have an unpleasant method - deterrence - that works, and a pleasant method - rehabilitation - that (at least so far) never has worked. Under the circumstances, we have to opt either for the deterrence method or for a higher crime rate."

V. Write an essay (a page long) on one of the following topics; make extensive use of the vocabulary.

1) Punishment is justice for the unjust.              St. Augustine 354-430

2) The generality of men are naturally apt to be swayed by fear rather than reverence, and to refrain from evil rather because of the punishment that it brings than because of its own foulness.              Aristotle BC 384-322, Greek Philosopher

3) Retaliation is related to nature and instinct, not to law. Law, by definition, cannot obey the same rules as nature.              Albert Camus 1913-1960, French Existential Writer

4) In its function, the power to punish is not essentially different from that of curing or educating.              Michel Foucault 1926-1984, French Essayist, Philosopher

5) The first and greatest punishment of the sinner is the conscience of sin.              Seneca

6) Punishment is the last and the least effective instrument in the hands of the legislator for the prevention of crime.              John Ruskin 1819-1900, British Critic, Social Theorist

UNIT 3. LAW AND THE INTERNET.

I. Discussion: think of possible legal problems that the Internet may cause Use the material on the topic “Economy”.

II. 1. Read the text below. Find in the text the English equivalents of the following words:

-финансовая афера;

-взламывать систему;

-вымогательство;

-взлом компьютерной системы безопасности;

-злоупотребление интернетом на рабочем месте;

-фиктивная компания;

-кража сведений личного характера;

-преследование;

-неожидаемый;

-компьютерная программа, несущая скрытую опасность;

-использовать уязвимые места в системе безопасности;

-промышленный шпионаж.

What is a Cybercrime?

Cybercrime is one of the fastest-growing criminal activities on the planet. Cybercrime is defined as the use of any computer network for crime and the high-tech criminals of the digital age have not been slow to spot the opportunities. The scope of the definition becomes even larger with the frequent companion or substitute term “computer-related crime.” Some writers are also of the opinion that “computer crime” refers to computer-related activities which are either criminal in the legal sense of the word or just antisocial behaviour where there is no breach of the law.

Given the extent to which computers have become a part of modern life, it was inevitable that some people would see the wired world as an opportunity to make money or cause mischief. Cybercriminals can range from teenagers who vandalise websites to terrorists who target a nation.

Cybercrime covers a huge range of illegal activity including financial scams, computer hacking, downloading pornographic images from the internet, virus attacks, stalking by e-mail and creating websites that promote racial hatred.

• The term hacking was originally used to describe an audacious practical joke, but has become better known as a term for the activities of computer enthusiasts who pit their skills against the IT systems of governments and big corporations. Hackers sometime crack into systems to brag about their abilities to penetrate into systems, but others do it for illegal gain or other malicious purposes. The handiwork of some hackers, or "crackers" as they are known in the computer industry, has had disastrous results. The "love-bug" virus crippled at least 45 million computers worldwide and caused billions of dollars worth of damage.

• Then there is fraud and extortion. Some hackers have broken into the computer systems of banks and other businesses, with the intention of stealing money - or information like credit card numbers, which are just as valuable to the criminal.

 90% of US companies which responded to a Computer Security Institute survey said they had detected computer security breaches in the previous year

 74% acknowledged financial losses as a result of the breaches of security

 79% detected employee abuse of the internet, for example downloading pornography or pirated software

 85% detected computer viruses

Gangsters can use computers for extortion. Burglary rings track break-ins and then inventory their winnings from each job. Gangsters who want to murder a person in hospital can crack the hospital’s computers to alter the dosage of medication.

Scams by cyber-criminals include setting up bogus companies on the Net. Unsuspecting buyers are offered products at tempting prices, and then supply their credit card details - only to find that the site suddenly disappears. No phone number, no address and no redress. The dot com becomes a dot con.

• Another 21st century crime is identity theft. This usually does not involve hacking at all. Criminals can trawl the web or other public databases for information about someone's date of birth, social security number and address and then use that to apply for credit cards and run up huge bills. It is easy to do and as a result is one of the fastest growing crimes in the US.

• Cyber stalking. The goal of a cyberstalker is control. Stalking and harassment over cyberspace is more easily practiced than in real life. There are many cases where cyberstalking crosses over to physical stalking. Some examples of computer harassment are: - Live chat obscenities and harassment; - Unsolicited and threatening e-mail; - Hostile postings about someone; - Spreading vicious rumours about someone; - Leaving abusive messages on a website’s guest books.

• Malicious codes like worms, viruses and Trojan horses cause damage on a greater scale. These exploit security vulnerabilities of a system and they tend to alter or destroy data. The damage they cause is worth millions of Ringgit to companies as well as government agencies. Worms are different from viruses because they are able to spread themselves with no user interaction. A virus can attack systems in many ways: by erasing files, corrupting databases and destroying hard disk drives.

• Industrial espionage. This is where corporations spy on other companies and with network systems, this can be an easy task. Companies can retrieve sensitive information rarely leaving behind any evidence. Cyberespionage can also be applied to nations that spy on other countries' sensitive information.

With so many cybercrimes on the rise the need for a cyberlaw is obvious, but the difficulties are baffling.

The internet is a global system. We can now be attacked by criminals who do not need to come to this territory. Lots of policing arrangements have their roots in the fact that victim and offender are geographically co-located. So the problem for all law-enforcement agencies is the way that cybercrime, like the internet itself, is not limited by national boundaries. An investigation that begins in one country may quickly lead elsewhere, but without the co-operation of other nations, it may be impossible to track down the perpetrators and secure convictions.

Then there’s a question of liberty. When the Council of Europe produced a draft treaty on cybercrime, it was deluged by e-mails from internet users concerned about possible infringements of their privacy and liberty. One complaint said that the proposals could have "a chilling effect on the free flow of information and ideas."

European officials say they have tried to address these concerns, and stress that their intention is simply to consolidate laws against activities such as hacking, spreading viruses, and computer fraud so that in future there is a standard way of securing the digital evidence needed for prosecutions.