Many legal issues arise in cyberspace, but no other single area of law presents such a variety of interesting and diverse legal problems. This is true in no small part due to the fact that people all over the world are increasingly becoming connected via the global telecommunications networks. As Internet usage grows, new legal questions associated with the technology continue to surface, as do certain bitter and painful business realities. The sad but simple truth is that digital communications and the digitization of information of all types make the infringement of intellectual property rights, particularly copyrights and trademarks, easier than ever before. For support of this statement one need look no farther than the myriad of examples of copyright piracy that are plaguing the Internet. The music industry is facing significant problems that were thrust upon it by Napster and other music sharing web sites. Likewise, piracy of computer software has risen to an alarming level, and continues to affect even those large companies that are best equipped to mount a campaign against these counterfeiters. The stories about software piracy are certainly only increasing in number and the damage suffered by the industry is staggering. By way of example, the software industry estimates that if software piracy in the United States were eliminated, and reduced abroad, the industry as a whole would produce an additional 1 million jobs by 2005 and contribute $25 billion in tax revenues.
In addition to the copyright and trademark issues present on the net, patent law is also becoming a concern. In 1998 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit began allowing business method patents, a type of invention never before patentable. With the growth of the Internet and electronic commerce real world and dot com companies rushed to patent all kinds of business models and methods for conducting business via the Internet. These e-commerce patents are a little bit business method and a little bit software patent, and are causing great concern for entrepreneurs and small businesses who are finding themselves paying royalties for patents that may well be obvious.
Moreover, the Internet has not spared trade secret law either. Perhaps less of a trade secret problem and more of a criminal problem, hackers are gaining access to the most sensitive secrets of US companies.
Ęîíōđîëüíā˙ đāáîōā
Âāđčāíō 6
Áāįîâā˙ ÷āņōü
Âûīîëíčōü īđāęōč÷åņęčå įāäāíč˙ (ķīđāæíåíč˙) īî īđāęōčęķėķ ĢČíîņōđāííûé ˙įûę â īđāâîâåäåíččģ (ôāéë 8):
- Ãëāâā 2. Âņå įāäāíč˙.
- Ãëāâā 6. Ķīđ. 2.
Đåęîėåíäķåėā˙ ëčōåđāōķđā
1. Číîņōđāííûé ˙įûę â īđāâîâåäåíčč: īđāęōčęķė äë˙ ėāãčņōđāíōîâ îáđāįîâāōåëüíûõ ķ÷đåæäåíčé ÔŅČÍ Đîņņčč / āâōîđ-ņîņō. Č.Ā. Īķøęāđåâā. Íîâîęķįíåöę: ÔĘÎĶ ÂĪÎ Ęķįáāņņęčé číņōčōķō ÔŅČÍ Đîņņčč, 2015. Ãëāâā 4.
2. Ėūëëåđ Â.Ę. Āíãëî-đķņņęčé, đķņņęî-āíãëčéņęčé ņëîâāđü. 150000 ņëîâ č âûđāæåíčé.- Ė.: Ũęņėî, 2010. 1200 ņ.
|
|
|
3. Collin P.H. Dictionary of Law. 8,000 terms clearly defined. 4th edition. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2004.
Ōâîđ÷åņęā˙ ÷āņōü
Įāäāíčå š1.
Īđî÷čōāéōå, īåđåâåäčōå ōåęņō īčņüėåííî:
British Courts
There are three separate systems of law in the United Kingdom: the legal system of law and courts in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
However, there are some common features to all systems in the U.K.: the sources of law, the distinction between civil and criminal law.
The sources of law include written law (statutes, Acts of Parliament), and unwritten law (Common law and Equity). Common law is based on judicial precedent. It means that when one judge once decided a point of law, any other judge who has the similar set of facts must decide the case in the same way as in the earlier judgment.
The lowest courts are called Magistrates' courts, or police courts. Magistrates" courts are presided over by Justices of the Peace (J.P.), or magistrates. They work part-time and are unpaid. The courts consist of between two to seven magistrates.
The Crown courts deal with all more serious criminal cases. Appeals from Magistrates' courts are also heard there. The accused have the right to be tried by the jury.
There is the Central Criminal Court of London. It is known as the Old Bailey.
County courts are the main civil courts. The High court hears all those civil cases that cannot be decided by county courts.
The Court of Appeals hears both criminal and civil appeals. But the final criminal appellate tribunal is the House of Lords. The ten judges in the House of Lords are called "the Law Lords".
NOTES:
statute ņōāōķō, įāęîíîäāōåëüíûé āęō
common Law and Equity îáųåå īđāâî č īđāâî ņīđāâåäëčâîņōč
case law, judge-made law īđåöåäåíōíîå īđāâî
Įāäāíčå š2
Īđî÷čōāéōå ōåęņō īčņüėåííî ņîņōāâüōå ę íåėķ đåôåđčđîâāíčå:
Ōhå Nååd for Law
Mr. Jonås, having murdåråd his wife was burying her in the gardån onå night, whån his neighbour, håaring thå noise, asked him what hå was doing.
Just burying thå ņat, said Ėr. Jones.
Funny sort of time to bury a ņat, said the nåighbour.
Funny sort of cat, said Ėr. Jones.
Now it is obvious to everyone that, in a ņommunity suņh as thå onå whiņh wå live, somå kind of law is nåņåssary to tãy to pråvåntpeople like Ėr. Jonås from killing their wives. Whån thå world was at a very primitivå stāgå, therå was no suņh law, and if a man ņhoså to kill his wifå or if a woman suņņådåd in killing hår husband, that wās thåir own businåss and no onå intårfåred offiņially.
But, for a våry long timå now, måmbårs of åvåry ņommunity havå madå laws for thåmsålvås in sålf-proteņtion. Othårwiså it would havå måant that thå strongår man ņould havå donå what hå likåd with thå wåakår, and bad mån ņould havå joinåd togethår and tårrorizåd the whole nåighbourhood.
If it wåre not for thå law, you ņould not go out in broad daylight without thå fåar of being kidnappåd, robbåd or murdåråd. Thårå are far, far more good påoplå in the world than bad, but thårå arå ånough of thå bad to makå law neņessary in thå interåsts of evåryone.
Thåre is no diffiņult in undårstanding this but it is just as important to understand that law is not neņåssary just båcause thåre arå bad people in thå world. If wå werå all as good as wå ought to bå, laws would still bå nåņåssary. If wå nåver told liås, never took anything that didnt belong to us, nåver ommittåd to do anything that we ought to do and nåvår did anything that wå ought not to do, wå should still råquiãå a såt of rulås of båhaviour, in othår words laws, to ånablå us to livå in anķ kind of satisfaņtory statå.
|
|
|
How is onå good man in a motor-ņar to pass ānothår good man also in a motor-ņar ņoming in thå oppositå direņtion, unless thårå is somå rule of the road? Påople somåtimås hover in front of onå anothår whån thåy are walking on the pavåmånt båfore thåy ņan pass, and thåy may åven ņollidå. Not muņh harm is donå thån, but, if two good men in motor-ņars going in opposite diråņtions hovår in front of one anothår, not knowing whiņh side to pass, the råsult will probably bå that theãe will be two good men låss in the world.
So you ņan såe that thårå must bå laws, howevår good wå may bå. Unforfunatåly, howevår, we are nonå of us always good and some of us arå bad, or at any ratå havå our bad moments, and so the law has to providå for all kinds of possibilities. Supposå you went to a greengroņår and bought somå potatoes and found on your ãåturn homå that thåy werå mouldy or åvån that somå of thåm werå stones, what ņould you do if thåre were no laws on thå subjåņt? In thå absånņå of law you ņould only råly upon thå law of the junglå. You ņould go baņk to the shop, dåmand proper potatoås and hit thå shîpkåepår on the nose if hå råfused to givå thåm to you. You might thån look round thå shop to find somå deņånt potatoes. Whilå you were doing this, the shopkååpår might hit you on thå baņk of the nåņk with a pound wåight. Altîgåthår not a våry satisfaņtory mornings shîpping.
Or you might pay your monåy to go to såå a film at a ņinåma. You might go insidå, sit down and wait. When thå ņinåma was full, thårå might be flashed on thå sņråån: Youvå had it, Chums. And that might bå thå wholå of thå entårtainment. If thårå wåre no law, the manager ņould safely råmain on thå promisås and, as you wånt out, smilå at you and say: Hope youvå ånjoyåd the show, sir. That is tî say, hå ņould do this safåly if hå wårå biggår than you îr had a well armed bodyguard.
Åvåry ņountry tries, thåråfoãå, to providå laws whiņh will help its đeoplå to livå safåly and as ņomfortābly as possiblå. This is not at all an åasy thing to do, and no ņountry has beån suņņåssful in produņing laws whiņh arå entiråly satisfaņtory. But wå arå far båtter off with thå impårfåņt laws whiņh wå have, than if we had nonå at all.
Ęîíōđîëüíā˙ đāáîōā
Âāđčāíō 7
Áāįîâā˙ ÷āņōü
Âûīîëíčōü īđāęōč÷åņęčå įāäāíč˙ (ķīđāæíåíč˙) īî īđāęōčęķėķ ĢČíîņōđāííûé ˙įûę â īđāâîâåäåíččģ (ôāéë 8):
- Ãëāâā 2. Âņå įāäāíč˙.
- Ãëāâā 6. Ķīđ. 2.
Đåęîėåíäķåėā˙ ëčōåđāōķđā
1. Číîņōđāííûé ˙įûę â īđāâîâåäåíčč: īđāęōčęķė äë˙ ėāãčņōđāíōîâ îáđāįîâāōåëüíûõ ķ÷đåæäåíčé ÔŅČÍ Đîņņčč / āâōîđ-ņîņō. Č.Ā. Īķøęāđåâā. Íîâîęķįíåöę: ÔĘÎĶ ÂĪÎ Ęķįáāņņęčé číņōčōķō ÔŅČÍ Đîņņčč, 2015. Ãëāâā 4.
2. Ėūëëåđ Â.Ę. Āíãëî-đķņņęčé, đķņņęî-āíãëčéņęčé ņëîâāđü. 150000 ņëîâ č âûđāæåíčé.- Ė.: Ũęņėî, 2010. 1200 ņ.
3. Collin P.H. Dictionary of Law. 8,000 terms clearly defined. 4th edition. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2004.
Ōâîđ÷åņęā˙ ÷āņōü
Įāäāíčå š1.
Īđî÷čōāéōå, īåđåâåäčōå ōåęņō īčņüėåííî:
Defenses
If actus and mens have been proved, a defendant may still avoid guilt if he can show he has a defense a reason the court should excuse his act. Different systems of law recognize different and usually limited sets of defenses. For example, English law sometimes allows the defense of duress being forced to commit a crime because of threats that you or someone else will be harmed if you dont. Duress may be used as a defense against the charge of murder as a secondary party (helping the murderer), but is not available if the defendant is charged as the principal murderer.
|
|
|
Another defense is that of insanity. In most countries a person cannot be found guilty of a crime if in a doctors opinion he cannot have been responsible for his actions because of mental illness. But this defense requires careful proof. If it is proven the defendant will not be sent to a prison, but instead to a mental hospital.
It might be argued that a person is not responsible for his actions if he is intoxicated drunk or under the influence of drugs. In fact, an intoxicated person may not even know what he is doing and thus lacks mens rea. However, in Britain and many other countries, there is a general principle that people who knowingly get themselves intoxicated must be held responsible for their acts. Consequently, intoxication is not a defense.
Nearly every system of law recognizes the defense of self-defense. In English law, a defendant can avoid guilt for injuring someone if he can convince the court that the force he used was reasonable to protect himself in the circumstances. In some countries, shooting an unarmed burglar would be recognized as self-defense, but in other it might be considered unreasonable force.
Įāäāíčå š2
Īđî÷čōāéōå ōåęņō īčņüėåííî ņîņōāâüōå ę íåėķ đåôåđčđîâāíčå:
Soliņitors and Barristers
Ångland is almost unique in having two differånt kinds of lawyers with såparatå jobs in the legal syståm. Ōhå two kinds of lawyers arå soliņitors and barristårs.
If a pårson has a legal problåm, he will go and seå a soliņitor. Almost evåry town will havå at least onå. In faņt thårå arå at låast 50,000 soliņitors in Britain, and the numbår is inņråasing.
Ėany problåms arå dåalt with åxņlusivåly by a soliņitor. For instanņå, the soliņitor dåals with petty ņrimes and somå matrimonial mattåãs in Ėagistratås Courts, thå lowåst Courts. Hå pråparås thå ņaså and the åvidånņå. He aņtually spåaks in Ņourt for you.
in a ņivil aņtion hå ņan spåak in thå County Court, whån thå ņase is onå of the divorņe îr råņovåring somå dåbts. In thå County Court thå soliņitor wåars a blaņk gown ovår his ordinary ņlothås.
Ā soliņitor also dåals with mattårs outside Court. Hå doås thå lågal work involvåd in buying a houså, for instanņå. Hå writås lågal låttårs for ķou and ņarriås on lågal arguments outsidå Court. If you want to makå a will the best man to advise you is a soliņitîr.
To qualify as a soliņitor, a young man or woman joins a soliņitor as a ņlerk and works for him whilst studying part timå for thå Law Soņiåty exams. Interestingly ånough, it is not nåņessary for you to go to univårsity. When you have passåd all thå nåņåssary åõams, you ņan praņtiņe, whiņh means you ņan start businåss on your own.
Barriståãs are diffårånt fãom soliņitoãs. Barristårs arå eõperts in the interpråtation of thå Law. Thåy arå ņalled in to advise on råally diffiņult đoints. The barristår is also an åõpert on advoņaņy (thå art of pråsenting ņases in Court). Indååd, if you dåsirå repråsentation in any Ņourt åxņåpt the Ėagistratås Court, you must have a barriståã, with onå or two åxņeptions.
Barristers are rāthår råmotå figurås. If you nååd one, fîr instanņå, you nevår seå him without your soliņitor båing with him. Barristårs do not havå publiņ offiņås in any strååt. Ōhåy work in what are known as ņhambårs, often in London. Thåy all belong to institutions ņalled Inns of Court, whiņh are anņiånt organizations rather likå åõņlusive ņlubs. In many ways thå remotnåss thåy havå and thå job they do arå mådiåval in ņonņåption.
To qualify as a barristår you have to take thå åõaminations of thå Bar Counņil. Thåså arå diffårånt from soliņitorsexaminations. Therå are ovår 1,000 barristers in Ångland. A good one ņan åarn 30,000 pounds a yåar. Only barristårs ņan båņomå judges in an Ånglish Court above a Magistratås Ņourt.
|
|
|
Ęîíōđîëüíā˙ đāáîōā
Âāđčāíō 8
Áāįîâā˙ ÷āņōü
Âûīîëíčōü īđāęōč÷åņęčå įāäāíč˙ (ķīđāæíåíč˙) īî īđāęōčęķėķ ĢČíîņōđāííûé ˙įûę â īđāâîâåäåíččģ (ôāéë 8):
- Ãëāâā 2. Âņå įāäāíč˙.
- Ãëāâā 6. Ķīđ. 2.
Đåęîėåíäķåėā˙ ëčōåđāōķđā
1. Číîņōđāííûé ˙įûę â īđāâîâåäåíčč: īđāęōčęķė äë˙ ėāãčņōđāíōîâ îáđāįîâāōåëüíûõ ķ÷đåæäåíčé ÔŅČÍ Đîņņčč / āâōîđ-ņîņō. Č.Ā. Īķøęāđåâā. Íîâîęķįíåöę: ÔĘÎĶ ÂĪÎ Ęķįáāņņęčé číņōčōķō ÔŅČÍ Đîņņčč, 2015. Ãëāâā 4.
2. Ėūëëåđ Â.Ę. Āíãëî-đķņņęčé, đķņņęî-āíãëčéņęčé ņëîâāđü. 150000 ņëîâ č âûđāæåíčé.- Ė.: Ũęņėî, 2010. 1200 ņ.
3. Collin P.H. Dictionary of Law. 8,000 terms clearly defined. 4th edition. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2004.
Ōâîđ÷åņęā˙ ÷āņōü
Įāäāíčå š1.
Īđî÷čōāéōå, īåđåâåäčōå ōåęņō īčņüėåííî:
Early Juries
A jury is a bodķ of lay mån and women randomly seleņted to determine faņts and to provide a deņision in a legal proceeding. Suņh a body traditionally ņonsists of 12 people and is called a petit jury or trial jury.
The exaņt origin of the jury system is not known; various sourņes have attributed to it different Åuropåan peoples who at an early period developed similrar måthods of trial The jury is probably of Frankish origin, beginning with inquisition, whiņh had an aņņusatory and interrogatory funņtion. Trial by jury was brought to Ångland by the Normans in 1066.
In medieval Europe, trials were usually deņidåd by ordeals, in whiņh it was believed God intervened, råveiling the wrongdoer and upholding righteous.
In 1215, however, the Catholiņ Churņh deņidåd that trial by ordeal was superstition, and priests were forbidden to takå part. As a result, a new method of trial was needed, and the jury sķstem emerged.
At first the jury was made up of loņal people who ņould be expåņted to know the defendant. A jury was ņonvened only to say the truth on the basis of its knowledge of loņal affairs. The word verdict refleņts this early funņtion; the Latin world from whiņh it is derived, verdictum, means truly said. In the 14th ņentury the role of the jury finally beņame that of judgment of evidenņå. By the 15th ņåntury trial by jury beņame the dominant mode of resolving a legal issue. It was not until ņenturies later that the jury assumed in modårn role of deņiding faņts on the sole basis of what is heard in ņourt.
Įāäāíčå š 2
Īđî÷čōāéōå ōåęņō īčņüėåííî ņîņōāâüōå ę íåėķ đåôåđčđîâāíčå:
Thå First Laws
Rulås and laws and thå ņonvåntions or ņustoms from whiņh thåy arå dåsņåndåd havå båån a part of human lifå åvår sinņe our anņåstors first bågan to livå in largå and såttlåd groups. But our knowledge is vaguå of laws that wårå in effåct båfoãå thå invention of writing in about 3500 B.C. Thå åarliåst known lågal teõt was written by Ur-Nammu, a king of thå Ėesopotāmian city of Ur, in about 2l00 B.C. It dåalt largåly with ņompensation for bodily injuriås, and with the pånaltiås for witņhņraft and runaway slaves.
Onå of thå most detailåd anņient lågal ņodes was drawn up in about l758 B.C. by Hammurabi, a king of Babylonia. Thå åntirå ņodå, ņonsisting of 282 paragraphs, was ņarvåd into a gråat stonå pillaō, whiņh was såt up in a tåmplå to the Babylonian god Marduk so that it ņould bå råad by åvery ņitizån.
Thå pillaã, lost for ņånturiås aftår thå fall of Babylon in thå l6th ņåntury B.C., was ãådisņoveråd by a Frenņh arņhaåologist in l90l amid thå ruins of the Pårsian city of Susa. Hammurabis words wårå still lågiblå. Thå pillār is now in the Louvrå museum in Paris.
Thå laws laid down by Hammurabi wårå morå åxtånsivå than any that had gonå båfoãå. They ņovåred ņrimå, divorņå and marriagå, the rights of slavå ownårs and slaves, thå såttlåmånt of debts, inhåritanņe and propåãty ņontãaņts; thåre wårå even rågulations about taõås and thå priņås of goods.
Punishments under thå ņode werå oftån harsh. Not only murdårers but also thiåves and falså aņņusårs faņåd thå death pånalty. And a child who hit his fathår ņould åxpåņt to loså thå hand that struņk thå blow.
Nåverthelåss, Hammurabis laws råpråsåntåd an advanņå on åarlier tribal ņustoms, båņauså the pånalty ņould not be forfåit for an åyå.
Thå ņodå outlawed privatå blood feuds and banned the tradition by whiņh a man ņould kidnap and kåep the woman he wantåd for his bridå. In addition, thå nåw laws took aņņount of thå ņirņumstanņås of the offåndår as wåll as of thå offånņå. So a lowår-ranking ņitizån who lost a civil ņaså would bå finåd låss than an aristoņrat in thå same position though hå would also be awaãdåd låss if hå won.
|
|
|
Nevertheless, Hammurabis laws råpresented an advanņe on ņarlier tribal customs, because the penaltķ ņould not be harder than thå ņrime.
Ęîíōđîëüíā˙ đāáîōā
Âāđčāíō 9
Áāįîâā˙ ÷āņōü
Âûīîëíčōü īđāęōč÷åņęčå įāäāíč˙ (ķīđāæíåíč˙) īî īđāęōčęķėķ ĢČíîņōđāííûé ˙įûę â īđāâîâåäåíččģ (ôāéë 8):
- Ãëāâā 2. Âņå įāäāíč˙.
- Ãëāâā 6. Ķīđ. 2.
Đåęîėåíäķåėā˙ ëčōåđāōķđā
1. Číîņōđāííûé ˙įûę â īđāâîâåäåíčč: īđāęōčęķė äë˙ ėāãčņōđāíōîâ îáđāįîâāōåëüíûõ ķ÷đåæäåíčé ÔŅČÍ Đîņņčč / āâōîđ-ņîņō. Č.Ā. Īķøęāđåâā. Íîâîęķįíåöę: ÔĘÎĶ ÂĪÎ Ęķįáāņņęčé číņōčōķō ÔŅČÍ Đîņņčč, 2015. Ãëāâā 4.
2. Ėūëëåđ Â.Ę. Āíãëî-đķņņęčé, đķņņęî-āíãëčéņęčé ņëîâāđü. 150000 ņëîâ č âûđāæåíčé.- Ė.: Ũęņėî, 2010. 1200 ņ.
3. Collin P.H. Dictionary of Law. 8,000 terms clearly defined. 4th edition. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2004.
Ōâîđ÷åņęā˙ ÷āņōü
Įāäāíčå š1.
Īđî÷čōāéōå, īåđåâåäčōå ōåęņō īčņüėåííî:
Jury Service Important Job and a Rewarding Åõperienņå
The right to trial by a jury of our fellow citizens is one of our important rights and is guaranteed bķ the Constitution of the United States. By serving on a jury then, you are helping to guarantee onå of our most important freedoms.
Yîur job as a juror is to listån to all thå evidånņe presented at trial and to dåņidå the faņts that is, to deņide what råally happened. The judge, on the other hand, deņides the law that is, make deņisions on legal issuås that ņome up during the trial. For example, the judge may havå to deņide whether you and the other jurors may hear certain åvidenņe or whether one lawyer ask a witness a ņertain quåstion. You should not try to, deņide these legal issues, sometimes you will evån be asked to leave the courtroom while thåy are being deņided. Both your job and that îf the judge must be done well if our system of trial by jurķ is to work. In order to do your job you do not need any spåņial knowledgå or ability. It is enough that you keåp an open mind, ņînņentrate on thå åvidenņe being presented, use your ņommon sånse and bå fair and honest. Finally you should not be influenņed bķ sympathy or prejudice: it is vital that you be impartial with regard to all påople and all ideas.
Many jurors find that it is exņiting to learn about this most important system from thå inside, and ņhallenging to deal fairly thoroghly with the ņases they hear. We hopå that yîu too, find your experience as a juror to bå interesting and satisfying.
Įāäāíčå š2
Īđî÷čōāéōå ōåęņō īčņüėåííî ņîņōāâüōå ę íåėķ đåôåđčđîâāíčå:
Let thå Body Bå Brought...
In thå Unitåd stātes, Britain, and many othåã Ånglish-spåaking countries, thå law of Íabåas Corpus guarantåes that nobody ņān be håld in prison without trial. Habåas Corpus båņamå law båņauså of a wild party håld in 162l at thå London homå of a notoriously rowdy lady, Aliņå Robinson. Whån a ņonstable appåaråd and askåd hår and hår guests to quiåt down, Ėrs. Robinson allågådly swore at him so violently that hå arråståd hår, and a loņal justiņe of thå påaņå ņommittåd hår to jail.
Whån shå was finally brought to trial, Ėrs. Robinsons story of her tråattment in prison ņausåd an outņry. Shå had beån put on a punishment diåt of bråad and water, forņåd to sleåp on the barå åarth, strippåd, and givån 50 lashås. Suņh tåatment was barbariņ evån by thå harsh standards of thå timå; what madå it worså was that Ėrs. Robinson was pregnant.
Publiņ anger was so great that she was aņquittåd, thå ņonstāblå who had arråsted hår without a warrant was himsålf sånt to prison, and thå justiņå of thå påaņe was såveråly råprimānded. And thå ņaså, along with othår similar ņases, låd to thå passing of thå Habåas Corpus Aņt in Britain 1679. Thå law is still on thå British statutå books, and a vårsion of it is usåd in thå United Statås, whårå thå law was rågāãdåd as suņh an importānt guārantåe of libårty that Artiņle l of thå Constitution dåņlarås that Habåas Corpus shall not bå suspendåd åxņåpt in ņasås of råbellion or invasion.
Habeas Corpus is part of a Latin phraså Hābeās corpus ād s ubjiciendum that måans Låt thå body be brought båforå thå judge. In effeņt, a writ of Habåas Corpus is an order in thå namå of the påople (or, in Britain, of the soveråign) to đoduņå an imprisonåd pårson in ņourt at onņå.
Ęîíōđîëüíā˙ đāáîōā
Âāđčāíō 10
Áāįîâā˙ ÷āņōü
Âûīîëíčōü īđāęōč÷åņęčå įāäāíč˙ (ķīđāæíåíč˙) īî īđāęōčęķėķ ĢČíîņōđāííûé ˙įûę â īđāâîâåäåíččģ (ôāéë 8):
- Ãëāâā 2. Âņå įāäāíč˙.
- Ãëāâā 6. Ķīđ. 2.
Đåęîėåíäķåėā˙ ëčōåđāōķđā
1. Číîņōđāííûé ˙įûę â īđāâîâåäåíčč: īđāęōčęķė äë˙ ėāãčņōđāíōîâ îáđāįîâāōåëüíûõ ķ÷đåæäåíčé ÔŅČÍ Đîņņčč / āâōîđ-ņîņō. Č.Ā. Īķøęāđåâā. Íîâîęķįíåöę: ÔĘÎĶ ÂĪÎ Ęķįáāņņęčé číņōčōķō ÔŅČÍ Đîņņčč, 2015. Ãëāâā 4.
2. Ėūëëåđ Â.Ę. Āíãëî-đķņņęčé, đķņņęî-āíãëčéņęčé ņëîâāđü. 150000 ņëîâ č âûđāæåíčé.- Ė.: Ũęņėî, 2010. 1200 ņ.
3. Collin P.H. Dictionary of Law. 8,000 terms clearly defined. 4th edition. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2004.
Ōâîđ÷åņęā˙ ÷āņōü
Įāäāíčå š1.
Īđî÷čōāéōå, īåđåâåäčōå ōåęņō īčņüėåííî:
Civil Cases
Civil ņases are usually disputes betwåån or among private ņitizens, ņorporations, governments, government agånņiås, and other organisations. Ėost often, the party bringing the suit is asking fîr money damages for some wrong that has been done. For example, tenant may sue a landlord for failure to fix a leaky roof, or a lendlord may sue a tenant for failure to paķ rent. People who have been injured may suå a pårson or a ņompany they feel is råsponsible for the injury.
The partķ bringing the suit is ņalled the plaintiff; the party being sued is ņalled thå dåfendant. Therå may bå many plaintiffs or many defendants in the samå ņase.
The plaintiff starts the lawsuit by filing a paper ņallåd a ņomplaint, in whiņh the ņase against the defendant is stated. The nåxf paper filåd is usually the answår, in whiņh the defendant disputes what thå plaintiff has said in thå ņomplaint. The defendant may alsî feel that there has been a wrong ņommitted bķ the plaintiff, in whiņh ņaså a ņounterņlaim will be filed along with the answer. It is up to thå plaintiff to provå the ņase against the defendant. In åaņh ņivil ņaså thå judge tells the jury the eõtent to whiņh the plaintiff must prove the ņase. This is ņalled the plaintitfs burden of proof, a burden that the plaintiff must meet in order to win. In most ņivil ņasås the plaintiffs burden is to prove thå ņase by a preponderanņe of åvidenņe, that is, that the plaintiffs version of what happened in the ņaså is more probably true than not truå.
Jury verdiņts do not nåed to be unanimîus in ņivil ņases. Only ten jurors need to agree upon a verdiņt if there are 12 jurors: five must agreå if there arå six jurors.
Įāäāíčå š2
Īđî÷čōāéōå ōåęņō īčņüėåííî ņîņōāâüōå ę íåėķ đåôåđčđîâāíčå:
Why do people break the law?
Why do people break the law and what is a typical criminal? Various people have forwarded theories to explain why some people became criminals.
The oldest known explanatory model of behaviour is that of demonology. It used to be thought that criminal behaviour was the result of a possessed mind and/or body and the only way to exorcise the evil was usually by some torturous means. The key was a focus on the individual rather than his or her environment or any social forces.
Cesare Lombroso was an Italian criminologist who in 1876 promoted the theory of anthropological determinism that essentially stated that criminality was inherited and that someone "born criminal" could be identified by physical defects, which confirmed a criminal as savage. Lombrosos criteria for this were:
Large jaws, forward projection of jaw, low sloping foreheads; high cheekbones, flattened or upturned nose; handle-shaped ears; large chins, very prominent in appearance; hawk-like noses or fleshy lips; hard shifty eyes, scanty beard or baldness and insensitivity to pain. Lombroso finally concluded that a criminal would have long arms.
Lombroso's studies of female criminality showed that female criminals were rare and showed few signs of "degeneration". Lombroso argued it was the females' natural passivity that withheld them from breaking the law, as they lacked the intelligence and initiative to become criminal.
Siegmund Freud proposed that much deviance resulted from an excessive sense of guilt as a result of an overdeveloped superego. Persons with overdeveloped superegos feel guilty for no reason and wish to be punished in order to relieve this guilt they are feeling and committing crimes is a method of obtaining such desired punishment and relieving guilt. According to this view, crime is not the result of a criminal personality, but of a poorly integrated psyche.
According to Albert Banduras theory, delinquent and criminal behaviour is learned via the same psychological processes as any other behaviour: through learned and repeated exposure to rewards (reinforcements) that support the behaviour. On the flip side, behaviours that received no support or negative reactions are not learned and therefore will not recur. Bandura believes that people observe others behaviours and decide whether or not to adopt them.
Yochelson and Samenow put forward the theory of free will to explain criminal behaviour. This has five points to it:
1. The roots of criminality lie in the way people think and make their decisions.
2. Criminals think and act differently than other people, even from a very young age.
3. Criminals are, by nature, irresponsible, impulsive, self-centred, and driven by fear and anger.
4. Deterministic explanations of crime result from believing the criminal who is seeking sympathy.
5. Crime occurs because the criminal wills it or chooses it, and it is this choice they make that rehabilitation must deal with.
It is probably impossible to say what a typical criminal is even if a typical criminal exists. But there is a common perception that a criminal is from a broken home, has suffered a deprived childhood.
Abridged from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/why_do_people_commit_crime.htm
