OTHER TIMES - OTHER MANNERS
Задание 1. Прочитайте текст и письменно ответьте на вопросы.
In order to understand why a particular country has a particular legal system, it is necessary to look at its history, political structure and social values. When there is political and social upheaval, one of the main concerns of a new government is to revise the legal system. Britain has had an unusual degree of political continuity. Despite civil wars in the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries and enormous social changes associated with industrialization, England and Wales have retained many laws and legal principles that originated eight centuries ago. On the other hand, most of the law of Japan, which experienced the rapid upheaval of the Meiji Restoration and foreign occupation after the Second World War, was developed within the last century.
Each country in the world, even each state of the United States, has its own system of law. However it is generally true to say that there are two main traditions of law in the world. One is based on English Common law, and has been adopted by many Commonwealth countries and most of the United States. The other tradition, sometimes known as Continental, or Roman law, was developed in most of continental Europe, Latin America and many countries in Asia and Africa, which have been strongly influenced by Europe. Continental law has also influenced Japan and several socialist countries.
- What should we do if we want to understand why a particular country has a particular legal system?
- When was most of the law of Japan developed within the last century?
- Where was Roman law developed?
- How many main traditions of law are there in the world?
- Where are they based?
Задание 2. Истинно или ложно высказывание (и/л)
1. A particular legal system is closely connected with the history, political structure, and social values of the country.
2. The legal system is fixed once and forever.
3. The law system is a universal thing.
4. Roman law has developed in the United States.
5. Japan, being isolated from the Continent, wasn't influenced by any of the world traditions of law.
Задание 3. Прочитайте текст и письменно переведите его на русский язык.
Crime is a violation of a law that forbids or commands an activity. Such as murder, rape, arson are on the books of every country. Because crime is a violation of public order, the government prosecutes criminal cases.
Courts decide both criminal and civil cases. Civil cases stem from claims to something of value. Disputes arise from accidents, contract obligations, and divorce, for example.
Most countries make a rather clear distinction between civil and criminal procedures. For example, an English criminal court may force a defendant to pay a fine as punishment for his crime, and he may sometimes have to pay the legal costs of the prosecution. But the victim of the crime pursuits his claim for compensation in a civil, not a criminal, action.
Criminal and civil procedures are different. Although some systems, in the English law, allow a private citizen to bring a criminal prosecution to another citizen, criminal actions are nearly always started by the state. Civil procedures, on the other hand, are usually started by individuals.
Some courts, such as the English Magistrates Courts and the Japanese Family Court, deal with both civil and criminal matters. Others, such as the English Crown Court, deal exclusively with one or the other.
In Anglo-American law, the party bringing a criminal action (that is, in most cases the state) is called the prosecution, but the party bringing a civil action is the plaintiff. In both kinds of action the other party is known as the defendant. A criminal case against a person called Ms. Brown would be described as "The People vs. (versus, or against) Brown" in the United States and "R. (Regina, that is, the Queen) vs. Brown" in England. But a civil action between Ms. Brown and Mr. Smith would be "Brown vs. Smith" if it was started by Brown, and "Smith vs. Brown" if it was started by Mr. Smith.
Evidence from a criminal trial is not necessarily admissible as evidence in a civil action about the same matter. For example, the victim of a road accident does not directly benefit if the driver who injured him is found guilty of the crime of careless driving. He still has to prove his case in a civil action. In fact he may be able to prove his civil case even when the driver is found not guilty in the criminal trial.
Once the plaintiff has shown that the defendant is liable, the main argument in a civil court is about the amount of money, or damages, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff.