 |
What do you think?. 5. Разделитесь на две группы: те, кто выступает в защиту телевизионных судебных процессов, и те, кто против. В группах напишите аргументы «за» или «против». Назначьте в каждой группе студента, который озвучит ваши доводы. Постарайтесь
|
|
|
|
What do you think?
1. Is it a good idea to televise trials?
2. What are bad and good points about these shows?
5. Разделитесь на две группы: те, кто выступает в защиту телевизионных судебных процессов, и те, кто против. В группах напишите аргументы «за» или «против». Назначьте в каждой группе студента, который озвучит ваши доводы. Постарайтесь переубедить своих оппонентов или выработать единую точку зрения по данному вопросу.
6. Прочитайте выдержку из доклада, сделанного Международной комиссией юристов (ICJ), о проблемах в сфере судебной власти в России. На английском языке кратко расскажите о том, что вы узнали.
THE JUDICIARY IN PRACTICE: PROBLEMS OF INDEPENDENCE
AND EFFECTIVENESS
The judiciary in Russia seems to be struggling with its institutional past and long-standing legal culture. Some positive reforms have been instituted, but more far-reaching reforms are needed. Yet there is a near-absence of open public discussion on reforms or a clear plan for carrying reform forward.
The International Commission of Jurists undertook a five-day research mission to Moscow from 20 to 24 June 2010 to analyze judicial reform in the Russian Federation (RF) and to assess the progress made so far and the problems that remain. The outcome of this research was the report aimed to shed light on certain aspects of judicial independence and to suggest solutions to address some of these long-standing issues.
Section IV of this report considers the practical matters that affect the independence of the judiciary. The following problems are described:
Undue influence on judges. Judges were said to be often directly instructed on how to resolve a case. If the expectations are not met, a decision may be revoked and a judge may face disciplinary measures due to a poor record, pushing justice to the sidelines.
Procuratura and Law Enforcement. The procuratura is said to influence the judiciary, contrary to the requirement of strict respect of the independence and the impartiality of judges. Generally more weight is given to the prosecution’s opinion than to that of the defence, while judges who are not attentive enough to the demands of the prosecution may face consequences including dismissals. More generally, the pressure from law enforcement interests remains strong and laws have recently been adopted that strengthen the FSB.
Corruption. Not only are courts subject to political pressure, there are allegations that some judges provide “services” to organizations and individuals, for instance by taking bribes for expedited consideration of cases or for making particular decisions.
|
|
|
Factors influencing the attitudes and mindset of judges. Problems of the judiciary are rooted in the attitudes of judges for whom it is difficult to recognize the priority of human rights and interests of an individual. Many judges see themselves as agents of the state whose main goal is to protect its interests.
Public trust and civil society. There is a clear lack of public trust in the fairness and effectiveness of the justice system, as judges are often viewed as servants of the state and defenders of its interests.
7. Работа в парах. Со своим партнерам обсудите выдержку из доклада и составьте предложения по решению проблем, обозначенных в докладе из упражнения 6.
| In my opinion… What I think is (that)… I feel (that)… I strongly believe (that)… Speaking of… To begin with, … First and foremost, … Our top priority is… But also important is… Aside from that, … Last but not least | По моему мнению… Я думаю, что… Я полагаю (считаю), что… Я твердо убежден, что… Говоря о… Прежде всего… На первом месте, прежде всего, во-первых Наиважнейшим является… Важным является также… Помимо этого, … Последний по счету, но не менее важный |
Unit 13
JUDICIAL BRANCH OF THE USA
1. Прочитайте текст и найдите ответы на следующие вопросы:
What is the judicial system in the United States made of?
Why are there two court systems in the United States?
Do both court systems have similar jurisdictions?
TEXT 4
THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES
The judicial system in the United States is unique insofar as it is actually made up of two different court systems: the federal court system and the state court systems. While each court system is responsible for hearing certain types of cases, neither is completely independent of the other, and the systems often interact. Furthermore, solving legal disputes and vindicating legal rights are key goals of both court systems.
The U. S. Constitution created a governmental structure for the United States known as federalism. Federalism refers to a sharing of powers between the national government and the state governments. The Constitution gives certain powers to the federal government and reserves the rest for the states. Therefore, while the Constitution states that the federal government is supreme with regard to those powers expressly or implicitly delegated to it, the states remain supreme in matters reserved to them. This supremacy of each government in its own sphere is known as separate sovereignty, meaning each government is sovereign in its own right.
|
|
|
Both the federal and state governments need their own court systems to apply and interpret their laws. Furthermore, both the federal and state constitutions attempt to do this by specifically spelling out the jurisdiction of their respective court systems.
For example, since the Constitution gives Congress sole authority to make uniform laws concerning bankruptcies, a state court would lack jurisdiction in this matter. Likewise, since the Constitution does not give the federal government authority in most matters concerning the regulation of the family, a federal court would lack jurisdiction in a divorce case. This is why there are two separate court systems in America. The federal court system deals with issues of law relating to those powers expressly or implicitly granted to it by the U. S. Constitution, while the state court systems deal with issues of law relating to those matters that the U. S. Constitution did not give to the federal government or explicitly deny to the states.
|
|
|
