Unit 11. Crime

The Murderers

The General’s Visit / No Teeth

1)He immediately ordered a pool and courts to be built.

2)Some weeks later Peter met his friend in the street, and the friend asked him what had happened.

3)Peter had been called up, but he didn’t want to join the army, so he asked his friend what he should do.

4)When he was asked why he would not give benches to primary children but wanted prisoners to have a swimming pool, he replied, ’Do you think I will ever go back to primary school?’

5)His friend said, “Well, why don’t you have all your teeth pulled out? You won’t get past the medical then.”

6)A general visited a primary school where the children said they had no benches to sit on.

7)Some time later he visited a prison. The men there complained they had no swimming pool and no tennis courts.

8)Peter, who had no teeth left, mumbled, “The officer said I was no good to the army – I’ve got flat feet!”

9)He told the kids there were no benches – they must make sacrifices for their country.

b)Solve the puzzle.

New York,

from our own correspondent

Police arrested five men suspected of shooting and killing Richard K. Foxy, the well-known nightclub owner. They now know which of the five men is the killer.

Each man made two statements during the questioning, one of which was true and one false. Here are the five statements:

Daddy Long-Legs. I didn’t kill Foxy. Square-Head murdered him.

Shorty.I sure never shot that guy. These other four all say they’re innocent.

Square - Head. Just look at that guy’s face: Big-Nose shot Foxy dead. I’m not guilty.

Fatty. Square-Head’s the guilty one. I’m innocent.

Big - Nose. I had nothing whatever to do with this murder. Daddy Long-Legs and Fatty are the killers.

I 1.Study the words.

flog – пороть, сечь

detention – задержание, арест

concurrent – совпадающий, действующий одновременно

inmate – обитатель

discernible – видный, различимый

grave – серьезный

custody – опека, попечительство

2.Match the words and their definitions.

guardian manslaughter reformatory juvenile pay amends unruly probation phase out

-of or for young people -the crime of killing a person illegally, but not intentionally -the system of allowing certain lawbreakers not to go to prison, if they behave well -a special school for young people who have broken the law -difficult to control -to stop or remove -someone who has responsibility of looking after a child that is not their own -pay for some harm, damage

II 1.Read the following text. Arrange the paragraphs in the right order.

’Cops, Courts and Correction’

Recent events have once again focused attention on the treatment of young offenders rather than the prevention of youth crime.

a) In another case a 15-year-old from Leeds was found last June to have stolen 400 cars worth more than £3 million pounds within a year.

Such cases have prompted calls from politicians of all parties, the police, judges and magistrates for more effective measures to deal with young offenders. Particular concern has been expressed about “persistent” offenders: young people who are frequently arrested and taken to court but released because the courts have no powers to lock up people of their age.

b) But the first big reforms came only in the 1840s, when “reformatories” were formed specifically for juveniles. These were "secure" institutions where young criminals, orphans and abandoned children could be locked up, often for five years or more. The aim was to reform and improve them by harsh discipline, work and religious instruction. They were punished by being beaten with the birch, a bundle of twigs.

In 1908 the first juvenile courts were set up; previously young people had been tried by adult courts. The age of criminal responsibility (the age at which children are held to be responsible for their actions) was set at eight years. The probation service was set up to “advise, assist and befriend” youngsters, a factor which cut the numbers of juveniles locked up. Older juveniles aged 16 and over who broke the law could be sent to “Borstals”. These were established to provide training in a craft or a trade under strict regimes and enable the trainees to gain employment and be better equipped for life outside.

c) The approved schools were themselves renamed “community homes with education” in 1969. Some, for more unruly youngsters, were secure. Borstals were abolished in 1982 and replaced by “youth custody centres” for 15- to 21-year-olds. These continued the element of training.

In a response to public concern about youth crime, the Conservative government revived the idea of the "short, sharp shock". It introduced this regime to some detention centres, which had been running concurrently with Borstals for 14- to 16-year-olds. The Government hoped it would deter youngsters from returning to crime.

d) The number of informal warnings by police to youngsters has also increased. These warnings are not recorded, so again the amount of juvenile crime might have been underestimated.

The powers which courts have to deal with serious offenders in their early teens were limited in 1988 by the Criminal Justice Act. This prevented youngsters under 14 from being locked up for any crime other than murder or manslaughter, a less serious category of unlawful killing. Last October that age limit was raised to 15.

For 150 years governments have tried to strike a balance between punishing and reforming young offenders. Two hundred years ago children were hanged and put in jail merely for stealing food. Pressure for reform in the 1820s led to cuts in the number of offences attracting the death penalty.

e) However, some organizations are concerned that there has been little in the debate about prevention. Crime Concern argues in a new document on youth crime: “Too many crime-prevention programmes focus exclusively on ‘cops, courts and correction’. We need to pay as much attention to preventing crime as we currently do to reacting to it.”

f) According to the Home Office, the government department responsible for criminal policy and crime prevention: “The amount of crime for which juveniles are known to have been responsible has fallen sharply over the last decade, following an increase in the 1970s.”

But the compilers of these statistics say that they must be treated with caution. They exclude the large amount of unreported crimes. Many of the remaining crimes are not solved — so they cannot be classified as “adult” or “juvenile” crime. Additionally, the number of juveniles in the general population has fallen by a fifth in the past 10 years.

g) The murder last month of two- year-old Jamie Bulger in Bootle has heightened the public’s vague sense of unease that crime involving young people may be getting worse.

The case follows some other well- publicised examples in which juveniles — boys or girls aged between 10 and 17 — have been accused of committing serious crimes. Two weeks ago an 11- year old boy appeared on television in a balaclava mask outside an elderly couple’s house. He had crashed a stolen car into the garden and been arrested, but the police had no authority to keep him in custody to await trial.

h) Today, the main political parties are starting to agree that new measures are needed to control the persistent young offender. The Government is planning to bring back secure institutions for 12- to 15-year-old offenders on the lines of the old approved schools.

The Labour party says that persistent young offenders should be locked up as a last resort. But it opposes a return to approved schools. Labour wants the number of secure places provided by the local authorities, for serious offenders, to be increased.

i) In 1933 the 19th-century reformatories were renamed “approved schools” for 10- to 15-year-olds. The age of criminal responsibility was raised to 10 in England and Wales, although it remained at eight in Scotland. The aim continued to be reform. Boys under 14 could still be flogged but this was stopped in 1948, when detention centres were set up for more serious and persistent juvenile offenders. Like prisons, they were criticized for putting people into a setting where they learned more about crime.

Short, sharp failure The Conservative government in 1979 proposed a “short, sharp shock” to cure persistent offenders and deter others. In 1981, inmates at four detention centres were set drill and exercise. Many enjoyed the chance to get fitter. In 1984, the Home Office stated that the initiative “had no discernible effect on the rate at which trainees were reconvicted”. Half were convicted of a crime within a year of release. The scheme was phased out soon afterwards.

2.Answer the questions.

1)What recent events have focused public attention on the treatment of young offenders?

2)Why statistics on juvenile crime are to be treated with caution?

3)What changes did the Criminal Justice Act (1988) bring?

4)What was the essence of the reforms of 1820s, 1840s?

5)What changes have been introduced in the 20^th century to control the persistent young offenders?

6)Do recently introduced crime-prevention programmes really concentrate on preventing crime?

3.Compare different punishing and reforming measures for young offenders in Britain.

4.Read the following text.

Дата добавления: 2014-12-24