2
Fbgbkl_jkl\h\ukr_]hbijhn_kkbhgZevgh]hh[jZah\Zgby JhkkbckdhcN_^_jZpbb ...
60 downloads
151 Views
72KB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
2
Fbgbkl_jkl\h\ukr_]hbijhn_kkbhgZevgh]hh[jZah\Zgby JhkkbckdhcN_^_jZpbb
:G=EBCKDBCYAUD l_dkluihki_pbZevghklb ^eyklm^_glh\-dmjkh\^g_\gh]hhl^_e_gby xjb^bq_kdh]hnZdmevl_lZ
KhklZ\bl_ev <<IhlZemc
3
F_lh^bq_kdb_ mdZaZgby kh^_j`Zl q_luj_ iZju l_dklh\ g_kmsbo \ k_[_ ijhlb\hiheh`gu_lhqdbaj_gbygZijh[e_fuk\yaZggu_kxjbkijm^_gpb_c Kh_^bgzgguo RlZlh\ :f_jbdb
4
I. Read Text 1A. Fines Can Be an Effective Prison Alternative dissatisfaction -g_^h\hevkl\hg_m^h\e_l\hjzgghklv sentence -ijb]h\hj option -ijZ\h\u[hjZ jail -lxjvfZ ke_^kl\_ggZybebdjZldhkjhqgh]haZdexq_gby prison -lxjvfZ ^he]hkjhqgh]haZdexq_gby acute -j_adbckbevguc fine -rljZn frequently -qZklh identify -hlh`^_kl\eylv major -]eZ\guchkgh\ghc impediment -ij_iylkl\b_ assumption -ijbgylb_ijbk\h_gb_ij_^iheh`_gb_ offender -ijZ\hgZjmrbl_ev affluent -[h]Zluc punitive -dZjZl_evguc inevitabl -g_ba[_`guc remedy -e_dZjkl\hkj_^kl\hf_jZ amount -dhebq_kl\hkmffZ gravity -k_jvzaghklvly`_klv consistent -kh]eZkmxsbckyihke_^h\Zl_evguc equitable -kijZ\_^eb\uc[_kijbkljZklguc impose -gZeZ]ZlvgZagZqZlv increase -m\_ebqb\Zlv be better-off -[ulv[h]Zq_ retributive -dZjZl_evguc trend -l_g^_gpby severity -kmjh\hklvkljh]hklv`_klhdhklv defendant -h[\bgy_fucih^km^bfuc equate -jZ\gylvmjZ\gb\Zlv equity -kijZ\_^eb\hklv adjust -kh]eZkh\u\Zlvmj_]mebjh\Zlv means -kj_^kl\Zkhklhygb_ sole -h^bg_^bgkl\_gguc bkdexqbl_evguc restrict -h]jZgbqb\Zlv impact -\ebygb_ Because dissatisfaction with present sentencing options is widespread, and jail and prison overcrowding is acute the use of fines as criminal sanctions is once
5
again attracting the attention of American judges and other policymakers. American judges who handle criminal cases generally view fining positively and use fines more frequently than is commonly recognized. But they identify two major impediments to improving the usefulness of the fine as a sanctions: the assumption that poor ofenders to buy their way out of punitive sentences. However, nearly a decade of empirical research on courts’ experiences with fines indicates that problems in their administration and collection are not inevitable. Because they are very closely tied to the principles (or lack of principles) guiding fine use by American courts, these problems can be remedied by changes in court policy and procedure. To make fines usable as punishment in more criminal cases, American judges, posecutors and other policymakers indicate they need better ways to set the fine amounts. Those ways should provide amounts that are not only proportionate to the gravity of the offence and consistent across offenders convicted of similar crimes, but are also financially equitable. Courts throughout the United States tend to impose fine amounts that are well below statutory limits. This is despite the efforts of many states legislatures to increase statutory fine maxima in order to make punitive fines available to judges seeking ways to impose sanctions against better-off offenders. The narrow range of actual fine amounts comes about because the retributive trend in American sentencing policy focuses judges primarily on the severity of crime in determining the sentence. In concidering whether to impose fines, judges find their choices as to fine amounts constrained by a tendency for American courts to settle for “tariff” systems (fixed amounts set for specific offenses). The tariff systems common to many American courts are based upon informal understandings that fixed-fine amounts will be imposed on all defendants convicted of a particular crime. Because American judges generally appear to equate equity with consistency, they typically set fine amounts with an eye to the lowest common economic denominator of offenders coming before the court. Fixed-fine systems, therefore, limit the sentencer’s ability to adjust the fine amount to the individual offender’s means as well as to crime severity. As a result, the range of cases in which fines are used as sole sanction is restricted in most American courts to the less serious crimes or to first offenders. Most notable are the experiences of some European courts with what are referred to as “day-fine systems” because the fine amount is linked to an offender’s day income. All day-fine systems are designed to produce monetary punishments that are proportionate to the gravity of the offense, but equivalent in punitive impact for offenders with different financial resources. II. Answer the questions: 1. Why do American judges tend to use fines as criminal sanctions?
6
2. What are the major impediments to improving the usefulness of the fine as a sanction? 3. What do American judges, prosecutors and other policymakers need to make fines usable as punishment in more criminal cases? 4. What about fine amounts being imposed at the present time? What are the efforts of many state legislatures? 5. Do judges tend to impose fine amount according to the tariff systems? What are these systems based upon? 6. In what way do American judges equate equity? 7. What is the range of cases in which fines are used as a sole sanction restricted to? 8. What are the experiences of some European courts? III. Read Text 1B. Probation Can Be an Effective Prison Alternative. probation -mkeh\gh_hkm`^_gb_ convict -hkm`^zgguc suspend -ijbhklZgZ\eb\ZlvhldeZ^u\Zlv release -hk\h[h`^Zlv\uimkdZlv supervision -gZ^ahj caseworker -ebphbamqZxs__hl^_evgu_kemqZbijZ\hgZjmr_gbcihfZl_jbZeZf^_e circumstance - SO h[klhyl_evkl\Z parlor (BE: parlour) -]hklbgZy unsavory (BE: unsavoury) -hl\jZlbl_evguc hang out - jZa] h[blZlv triple -mljh_ggucljhcghc reliance -^h\_jb_hihjZ virtually -nZdlbq_kdb conceive -aZ^mfu\Zlv youngster -xg_p victim -`_jl\Z mugger -mebqguc]jZ[bl_ev deserve -aZkem`b\Zlv caseload -dhebq_kl\hex^_caZdhlhjuog_kmlhl\_lkl\_gghklv hij_^_ezggu_ebpZ fiscal -nbgZgZkh\uc frustrate -jZkkljZb\Zlvkju\Zlv sober(ing) -hlj_a\eylv split -jZks_ie_gb_lj_sbgZjZkdhe
7
permit -jZaj_rZlviha\heylv scarce -kdm^gucg_^hklZlhqguc drill -h[mq_gb_lj_gbjh\dZ enforce -ijbgm`^Zlvijh\h^blv\`bagv device -mkljhckl\h at random -gZm]Z^ In concept, at least, the courts do have a sanction to impose short of prison. It is called probation. Typically, a judge imposes a prison sentence on a convict but suspends it and allows release under surevision of a probation officer. In addition to seeing that convicts stay out of trouble, the probation officer is expected to function as a social caseworker, or “resource broker”, helping convicts to find schooling, employment, and counseling. The judge can impose specific conditions on the probationer depending on the circumstances of his case (“Stay away from that videogame parlor where your unsavory friends hang out”). A probationer who fails to meet such conditions could find himself in prison, serving out the balance of the suspended term... Though the public remains only faintly aware of it, more than 2 million Americans are serving terms of probation today, more than triple the number in prison and nearly double the 1979 figure. The growth appearently reflects the courts’ increasing reliance on probation as they are overwhelmed with cases and prisons fill up. But virtually no one takes probation seriously as a sanction. It was originally conceived of as a way to give offenders for whom there might be some hope - especially youngsters - a second chance... By the end of the 1970s, in many cities, prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, and criminals and their victims would no longer think of probation as a second chance so much as a free ride you’re guilty, the court would say to the young burglar or mugger, but we don’t think you’ve done enough yet to deserve prison, and since we can’t figure out anything else to do with you, we’re going to let you go. Experienced probation workers consider caseload of thirty-five to fifty manageable. Yet in some urban jurisdictions, especially since the fiscal crises of the seventies, caseload run into hundreds. Large caseloads sometimes frustrate officers from seeing their clients at all. There is the increasingly common practice of “postcard probation”, in which the client sends a preaddressed postcard once or twice a month reporting on his activities. In some jurisdictions, postcard probation ends when the client misplaces his postcard. There are some experiments with combination of traditional probation with a sobering dose of prison. Some judges make a common practice of “split” sentences - a few weeks or month of jail followed by a longer term on probation. Others may prefer sentencing the offenders to weekends in jail and weekdays on
8
probation, an arrangement that permits the convict to hold a job and remain with his family. But such sentences require some use of scarce jail space. A few states are experimenting with “work camps” which might include morning of hard outdoor labor in woods or fields under the supervision of “drill instructors”, followed by afternoons of education, counseling, and job training. A second area of experimentation involves trying to enforce some control on an offender’s movements even though he has been released to the community. A number of enterprising companies produce devices designed to let probation officers monitor convicts in their homes. The device might be a transmitter, worn by convict, that continuously emits a signal. A receiver in the convict’s home telephone relays the signal to a computer at the probation office, indicating times when the signal is received and when it disappears. Another version of the system is based on an automatic telephone dialer in the probation office. It rings the convict’s home phone at random times during periods he is supposed to be there. When he answers, he verifies his identity with a device strapped to his wrist that plugs into another device on his phone. IV. Answer the questions. 1. What is called probation? 2. What does supervision of a probation officer mean? 3. When could a probationer find himself in prison? 4. How many people are serving terms of probation today? What does this fact reflect? 5. Do people take probation seriously as a sanction? What was the original aim of this sanction? 6. What happened at the end of 1970s? 7. How many caseloads can experienced probation workers consider? What happens in real life? 8. What does common practice of “postcard probation” and “split” sentences mean? 9. What do “work camps” have? 10. What about some control on an offender’s movements even though he has been released to the community? 11. In what way does an automatic telephone dialer work? V. Which of these sanctions do you think are most useful and why? I. Read Text 2A. Prisons Should Be Privately Run tough
-`zkldbc
9
shortage -g_o\ZldZg_^hklZlhd capacity -kihkh[ghklv penal -dZjZl_evguc outlay -ba^_j`dbjZkoh^u resistance -khijhlb\e_gb_ correction -bkijZ\e_gb_bkijZ\bl_evguc issue -a^\hijhkijh[e_fZ maintain -ih^^_j`b\ZlvkhojZgylv evaluation -hp_gdZ complaint -g_^h\hevkl\h`Zeh[Z inmate -aZdexqzgguc liable -hl\_lkl\_gguc hire -gZgbfZlv treatment -e_q_gb_ facility - SO \hafh`ghklbh[hjm^h\Zgb_ detention -kh^_j`Zgb_ih^Zj_klhfZj_kl alien -bghkljZg_p confinement -lxj_fgh_aZdexq_gb_ adult -\ajhkeuc wage -aZjZ[hlgZyieZlZ withhold -m^_j`b\Zlv board -iblZgb_klhe innovative -bggh\Zpbhggucgh\uc America has been getting tougher on lawbreakers. This is something that the public long has been demanding. The problem it creates, however, is a shortage of prison capacity to hold the increased numbers of convicted criminals. This has led to: prison overcrowding, sometimes prompting court actions against penal systems; rapidly rising operational outlays; and taxpayer resistance to the cost of new prisons. A partial answer to the problems of prison overcrowding and high costs may be the “privatization” of prisons. By using the private sector to build or manage prisons, many states believe that they can reduce costs. So far, most state correction agencies have used the private sector only to manage minimum-secure or non-secure “community” correction centers, such as juvenile institutions and halfway houses. Currently over half the states have passed legislation to allow for this form of prison privatization. Yet while prison privatization solves some problems, it raises serious issues. Among them: 1) Is the public ready to accept the private sector providing a service traditionally performed by the government?
10
2) Can the government maintain adequate supervision through careful monitoring and evaluation? 3) Should private security guards be given the right to use deadly weapons? 4) In the case of complaints by inmates or prison employees, is the government or the private contractor liable? Prison privatization means the transfer of prison functions from the government sector to the private sector. This can take various forms in the case of prisons. Among them: Contracting out services: This is the most common form of prison privatization. Currently, 39 states hire private firms to provide such services as medical and mental health treatment, drug treatment, education, staff training, and vocational training and counseling. Ownership and operation of prisons: To date, private operation of correction centers has been limited to “non-secure” and minimum-security facilities, such as halfway houses, juvenile homes, detention centers, and holding prisons for illegal aliens. Some 28 states allow private firms to operate such facilities. Several states are interested in extending private operation to secure or “confinement” adult prisons. Contracting out prison labor: By putting prisoners to work and paying them competitive wages, many private companies are reducing prison costs for the government by withholding earnings for taxes, room and board, family support, and victim’s compensation. Such employment also gives prisoners the skills and work experience that will prepare them for the job market when they are released. Privatization is a practical and innovative solution to the problems of overcrowding and high costs facing the U.S. prison system. Many states are recognizing this, contracting out inmates’ labor to private firms, and seeking private financing for prison construction. Many jurisdictions are unsure of prison privatization, fearing a loss in service, problems with liability, and threats to the jobs of prison personnel. As more and more jurisdictions experiment successfully with privatization, however, their experience should demonstrate privatization’s value. II. Answer the questions. 1. What has the public long been demanding? 2. What has this led to? 3. May a practical answer to the problems of prison overcrowding and high costs be the “privatization” of prisons? 4. In what way have most states correction agencies used the private sector? 5. What serious issues does prison privatization raise? 6. What does prison privatization mean?
11
7. What prison functions can be transfered from the government sector to the private sector? 8. What is special about each of them? 9. Many jurisdictions are unsure of prison privatization, fearing a loss in service, problems with liability, and threats to the job of prison personnel. What do you think on this account? Give your reasons. III. Read Text 2B. Prisons Should Not Be Privately Run claim -lj_[h\Zgb_aZy\e_gb_ outperform -^_eZlvemqr_q_f^jm]hc efficient -^_ckl\_ggucwnn_dlb\guc advantage -ij_bfms_kl\h garbage -fmkhjhl[jhku unmitigated -y\guc disaster -[_^kl\b_ input -\oh^ output -\uimkd precision -lhqghklvqzldhklv constraint -ijbgm`^_gb_ sophisticated -bkdmrzggucmfm^jzgguchiulhf limp -keZ[uc[_a\hevguc fuel -aZijZ\eylvih^iblu\Zlv tighten -gZly]b\Zlva^ k^_j`b\Zlv rein -ih\h^ma^Z venture -jbkdh\Zggh_ij_ijbylb_ perception -\hkijbylb_ihgbfZgb_ unrelievedly -fhghlhggh[_abaf_g_gbc bleak -fjZqguc evident -hq_\b^guc proponent -klhjhggbdaZsblgbd assert -ml\_j`^Zlv counterpart -dhee_]Z ijhlb\gZyklhjhgZ immune -g_\hkijbbfqb\uc ‘red tape’ -[xjhdjZlbaf\hehdblZ cursory -[_]eucih\_joghklguc abdicate -hldZau\ZlvkykeZ]Zlviheghfhqby custody -aZdexq_gb_Zj_kl behalf -RQaRI\bgl_j_kZodh]h-eb[hhlbf_gbdh]h-eb[h
12
Most claims that private corrections firms can outperform public correction agencies rest on two assumptions. The first is that there are significant differences between public and private management that business firms are necessarily more “efficient”, “effective”, and “innovative” than government agencies, and that these advantages of private management are universal: they obtain whether the task is picking up garbage or locking up prisoners. The second assumption is that the public sector’s administrative experience in corrections has been an unmitigated disaster: prisons and jails have been, and continue to be, horrible places that are horribly run. Both assumptions are false. There is more than human caprice behind the fact that some tasks are in public rather than private hands; there are nontrivial reasons why we have both government and business, both politics and markets, both public agencies and private corporations. In the public sector, the relationship between valued inputs (people, money) and desired outputs (less crime, better public health) is often unclear and may even be impossible to specify with any degree of precision. The political and legal constraints on what work gets done, how, and by whom tend to be far greater in the public arena. “Sophisticated” management theories and techniques may or may not help in the private sector, but they are almost always more likely to come away limping when applied to public tasks. Privatization efforts have been fueled by the belief that public correctional institutions are too crowded; but the crowding problem is less acute than is commonly supposed. Privatization initiatives have been offered as ways of tightening the reins on galloping correctional budgets, but the public sector has made innovations that promise to reduce the corrections tax bill. Privatization ventures are driven by the perception that public correctional managers have failed; but the public record is by no means unrelievedly bleak, and in some respects it is quite impressive. The problem of crowding, rising costs, and failed management are most evident in the area of high-security prisons and jails, but at present the privatizers offer no help for these institutions. When privatization proponents assert that the firms will do better because they, unlike their public-sector counterparts, will be immune to the political, administrative, and financial woes of governmental “red tape”, they should be reminded that “one person’s ‘red tape’ may be another’s treasured safeguard” [Herbert Kaufman]. Even a cursory review of the historical, political, and administrative issues surrounding private prison and jail management raises grave doubts, and not a few fears, about the prospects of privatizaton in this area. For much of American history, government has allowed too many of community’s prisons and jails to be ill-managed, or not managed at all. No selfrespecting constitutional government should again abdicate its responsibility to protect and guide criminals in state custody.
13
While private corrections firms have run admirable juvenile centers and other facilities, we are most likely to improve our country’s prisons and jails if we approach them not as a private enterprise to be administered on behalf of the community and in the name of civility and justice. The choice is between the uncertain promises of privatization and the unfulfilled duty to govern. IV. Answer the questions. 1. What do most claims that private corrections firms can outperform public corrections agencies rest on? 2. What are two assumptions? 3. Why are these assumptions false? 4. What have fueled privatization efforts? 5. Why have privatization initiatives been offered? 6. Why do privatization proponents think that the private corrections firms will do better? 7. How do you understand the words “one person’s ‘red tape’ may be another’s treasured safeguard”? 8. What does a historical review of private prison management reveal? V. Are you for or against private prisons? Give your reasons. I. Read Text 3A. Gun Control Increases Crime prevalence -jZkijhkljZg_gb_ entirely -kh\_jr_ggh approach -ih^oh^ convergence -Foh`^_gb_\h^ghclhqd_ target -p_evfbr_gv likely -\_jhylgucih^oh^ysbc household -ohayckl\h ^hfZrgb_ k_fvy ownership -ijZ\hkh[kl\_gghklbkh[kl\_gghklv survey -h[haj_gb_h[ahj sample -h[jZa_pfh^_ev ]jmiiZex^_c deterrent -k^_j`b\Zxsbc apprehend -Zj_klh\u\Zlv felon -m]heh\gucij_klmigbd encounter -\klj_qZklhedgh\_gb_ wound -jZgZjZgblv capture -aZo\Zlblv\aylv\ie_g premises -ihf_s_gb_
14
intimidate -aZim]b\Zlv victimize -fmqblvij_ke_^h\Zlv failure -g_m^ZqZijh\Ze reduce -mf_gvrZlvkhdjZsZlv purchase -ihdmidZijbh[j_l_gb_ obey -ih\bgh\Zlvky law-abiding -aZdhghihkemrguc decrease -mf_gvrZlv lethal -kf_jl_evguckf_jlhghkguc wield -\eZ^_lvbf_lv\jmdZo empower -miheghfhqb\Zlv^Z\Zlv\hafh`ghklv The prevalence and defensive use of guns in America are important topics for many research questions, yet they have been almost entirely ignored. For example, the “routine activities” approach to crime sees criminal incidents as a result of the convergence of “likely offenders and suitable targets in the absence of capable guardians”. At least six national and state-wide surveys have asked probability samples of the adult population about defensive gun use. 6 percent of the adults interviewed replied “yes” to the question: “Withtin the past five years, have you yourself or another memeber of your household used a handgun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of the property at home, work, or elsewhere, excluding military service or police work?” Those who replied “yes” were then asked “Was this to protect against an animal or a person?” Of the total sample, 2 percent replied “animal”, 3 percent “person” and 1 percent “both”. Therefore, 4 percent of the sample reported gun use against a person by someone in their household. There is direct evidence on the deterrent effects of victim gun use from surveys of apprehended criminals. 1,874 felons in prisons were interviewed in ten states and asked about their encounters with armed victims and their attitudes towards the risk of such encounters. Among felons who reported ever committing a violent crime or a burglary, 42 percent said they had run into a victim who was armed with a gun, 38 percent reported they had been scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim and 43 percent said they had at some time in their lives decided not to do a crime because they knew or believed the victim was carrying a gun. Concerning the felons’ attitudes towards armed victims, 56 percent agreed with the statement that “most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police”, 58 percent agreed that “a store owner who is known to keep a gun on the premises is not going to get robbed very
15
often”, and 52 percent agreed that “a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun”. Guns are potentially lethal weapons whether wielded by criminals or crime victims. They are frightening and intimidating for those they are pointed at. Guns thereby empower both those who would use them to victimize and those who would use them to prevent their victimization. Consequently, they are a source of both social order and disorder, depending on who uses them. The failure to fully recognize this can lead to grave errors in devising public policy to minimize violence through gun control. Some gun laws are intended to reduce gun possession only among relatively limited “high-risk” groups such as convicted felons, e.g., laws licensing gun owners or requiring permits to purchase guns. However, other laws are aimed at reducing gun possession in all segments of the civilian population, both criminal and non-criminal. By definition, laws are most likely to be obeyed by the lawabiding, and gun laws are no different. Therefore, measures applying equally to criminals and noncriminals are almost certain to reduce gun possession more among the latter than the former. Because very little serious violent crime is committed by persons without previous records of serious violence, there would be little direct crime control benefit to be gained by reductions in gun possession among noncriminals. Consequently, gun control measures could decrease the crime-control effects of noncriminal gun ownership more than they decreased the crime-causing effects of criminal gun ownership. II. Answer the questions. 1. What topics for many research questions are important in America? 2. Can you interpret the statement that the “routine activities” approach to crime sees criminal incidents as the result of the convergence of “likely offenders and suitable targets in the absence of capable guardians”? 3. What is the result of six national and state-wide surveys dealing with defensive gun use? 4. Do you agree with the statement that there are deterrent effects of victim gun use? 5. What are most criminals worried about? 6. Are guns a source of both social order and disorder depending on who uses them? 7. Some gun laws are intended to reduce gun possession only among “high-risk” groups such as convicted felons, but other laws are aimed at reducing gun possession in all segments of the civilian population, both criminal and noncriminal. What is your point of view? III. Read Text 3B.
16
Gun Control Reduces Crime homicide -m[bckl\h approximately -ijb[ebabl_evgh occur -bf_lvf_klhkemqZlvky assault -gZiZ^_gb_ altercation -i_j_[jZgdZ available -bf_xsbcky\gZebqbb^hklb`bfuc intentional -gZf_j_gguc access -^hklmi annual -]h^h\hc_`_]h^guc conceal -kdju\ZlvmlZb\Zlv recreation -hl^uojZa\e_q_gb_ obtain -^h[u\Zlvijbh[j_lZlv permit -jZaj_r_gb_ aggravated -hly]qZxsbc substantially -kms_kl\_ggh fivefold -\iylvjZa mortality -kf_jlghklv influence -\ebylv significantly -agZqbl_evgh provide -h[_ki_qb\Zlv compare -kjZ\gb\Zlv justifiable -fh]msbc[ulvhijZ\^Zggufiha\hebl_evguc relative -hlghkbl_evguckhhl\_lkl\mxsbc modest -mf_j_gguc Approximately 20,000 persons are murdered in the United States each year, making homicide the 11th leading case of death. Approximately 60 percent of homicides each year involve firearms. Handguns alone account for three-fourths of all gun-related homicides. Most homicides occur as a result of assaults during arguments or altercation; a minority occur during the comission of a robbery or other felony. In cases of assault, people tend to reach for weapons that are readily available. Since attacks with guns more often end in death than attacks with knives, and since handguns are disproportionately involved in intentional shootings, some have argued that restricting access to handguns could substantially reduce our annual rate of homicide. To clarify the relation between firearm regulations and community rates of homicide, we studied two large cities in the Pacific Northwest: Seattle,
17
Washington, and Vancouver, British Columbia. Although similar in many ways, these two cities have taken different approaches to handgun control. In Seattle, handguns may be purchased legally for self-defense in the street or at home. After a 30-day waiting period, a permit can be obtained to carry a handgun as a concealed weapon. The recreational use of handguns is minimally restricted. In Vancouver, self-defense is not considered a valid or legal reason to purchase a handgun. Concealed weapons are not permitted. Recreational uses of handguns (such as target shooting and collecting) are regulated by the province, and the purchase of a handgun requires a restricted-weapons permit. A permit to carry a weapon must also be obtained in order to transport a handgun, and these weapons can be discharged only at a licensed shooting club. Handguns can be transported by car, but only if they are stored in the trunk in a locked box. Although they differ in their approach to the firearm regulations, both cities aggresively enforce existing gun laws and regulations, and convictions for gunrelated offenses carry similar penalties. For example, the commission of a class A felony (such as a murder or robbery) with a firearm in Washington State adds a minimum of two years of confinement to the sentence for the felony. In the Province of British Columbia, the same offence generally results in 1 to 14 years of imprisonment in addition to the felony sentence. From both Seattle and Vancouver data on the rates of aggravated assault, simple assault, robbery, burglary, and homicides were obtained. Despite similar rates of robbery and burglary and only small differences in the rates of simple and aggravated assault, we found that Seattle had substantially higher rates of homicide than Vancouver. Most of the excess mortality was due to an almost fivefold higher rate of murders with handguns in Seattle. Critics of handgun control have long claimed that limiting access to guns will have little effect on the rates of homicide, because persons who are intent on killing others will only work harder to acquire a gun or will kill by other means. If the rate of homicide in a community were influenced more by the strength of intent than by the availability of weapons, we might have expected the rate of homicides with weapons other than guns to have been higher in Vancouver than in Seattle, in direct proportion to any decrease in Vancouver’s rate of firearm homicides. This was not the case. During the study interval, Vancouver’s rate of homicides with weapons other than guns was not significantly higher than that in Seattle. Ready access to handguns has been advocated by some as an important way to provide law-abiding citizens with an effective means to defend themselves. Were this true, we might have expected that much of Seattle’s excess rate of homicides, as compared with Vancouver’s, would have been explained by a higher rate of justifiable homicides and killings in self-defense by civilians. Although
18
such homicides did occur at a significantly higher rate in Seattle than in Vancouver, these cases accounted for less than 4 percent of the homicides in both cities during the study period. When we excluded cases of justifiable homicide or killings in self-defense by civilians from our calculation of relative risk, our results were almost the same. Our analysis of the rates of homicide in these two largely similar cities suggests that the modest restriction of citizens’ access to firearms is associated with lower rates of homicide. This association does not appear to be explained by differences between the communities in aggressiveness, criminal behavior, or response to crime. Our results suggest that a more restrictive approach to handgun control may decrease national homicide rates. IV. Answer the questions. 1. How many people are murdered in the United States each year? 2. How many homicides involve firearms? 3. What do people tend to do in cases of assault? 4. What did they study two large cities for? 5. Where may handguns be purchased legally for self-defense? 6. Is self-defense considered a valid or legal reason to purchase a handgun in Vancouver? 7. Do both cities aggressively enforce existing gun laws and regulations? 8. Which city had substantially higher rates of homicide according to the obtained data? 9. What do critics of handgun control claim? 10. Ready access to handguns has been advocated by some as an important way to provide law-abiding citizens with an effective means to defend themselves, hasn’t it? 11. What does the analysis of the rates of homicide in these two largely similar cities suggest? V. You have read two texts giving two different points of view. Which of them can be yours? I. Read Text 4A. Drugs Should Be Legalized drug -gZjdhlbd reason -jZamfjZkkm^hd[eZ]hjZamfgucijbqbgZ prohibition -aZij_s_gb_ possess -h[eZ^Zlv\eZ^_lv commodity -ij_^f_lihlj_[e_gbylh\Zj soar -klj_fbl_evghih\urZlvky
19
enterprise -ij_^ijbylb_ij_^ijbbfqb\hklv prosecutor -h[\bgbl_evbkl_p wage -\_klb\hcgm notwithstanding -g_kfhljygZ\hij_db dig smth out -gZoh^blvjZkdZiu\Zlv\udZiu\Zlv columnist -h[haj_\Zl_evn_ev_lhgbkl drug abuse -aehmihlj_[e_gb_gZjdhlbdZfb damage -\j_^ms_j[ih\j_`^_gb_ concomitant -khimlkl\mxsb_h[klhyl_evkl\Z robbery -djZ`Z]jZ[z` burglary -djZ`Zkh\aehfhf murder -m[bckl\h account for -hl\_qZlvaZh[tykgylv subversion -k\_j`_gb_]b[_ev stupendous -]jhfZ^gucbamfbl_evguch]jhfghc\Z`ghklb profit -\u]h^ZihevaZ stamp out -ih^Z\eylvmgbqlh`Zlv impact m^Zjlheqhd ijhqghmdj_ieylv exacerbate -h[hkljylvmkbeb\Zlv bail -\uimkdZlvgZihjmdb repeal -Zggmebjh\Zgb_hlf_gZ part and parcel -g_hlt_fe_fZyqZklv dismiss -hldehgylvhl^_eu\Zlvkyij_djZsZlvh[km`^_gb_\hijhkZ arouse -jZa[m^blvjZa^jZ`Zlv Sometimes reason speaks through a chorus of voices. Kurt L. Schmoke, the mayor of Baltimore , told the United States Conference of Mayors that it was time to start rethinking our drug policy. Just as Prohibition banned something millions of people wanted, our current drug laws make it illegal to possess a commodity that is in very high demand. As a result, the price of that commodity has soared far beyond its true cost. “This has led to enormous profits from illegal drugs and turned drug trafficking into criminal enterprise of choice for pushers and manufactures alike”. Schmoke was a prosecutor who, for seven years, waged the war on drugs. It is shocking to hear a veteran admit that “the emperor has no clothes. The war on drugs is been lost, notwithstanding President Reagan’s claim that we are digging our way out. And continuing our present policy - even with more money - is unlikely to make any difference”. Columnist William Raspberry asked, “What is the worst thing about drug abuse in America? Is it the damage done by such concomitants of drug trafficking as robbery, burglary, gangsterism and murder? Or is it the harm done by the drugs
20
themselves? Both categories are serious enough. Drugs kill. They destroy minds. They account for billions of dollars in lost productivity. We are right to worry about these things. “But I suspect that the drug-related problems we worry most about are less the result of drug abuse than of our efforts to control drugs. “The gangsterism, the organized crime, the execution-style murders and the subversion of neighborhoods, law-enforcement officials and even governments are largely the results of the stupendous profits to be made in drug trafficking, and the profits are the direct result of efforts to stamp out the traffic. “In other words, most of the actions we are taking because we are so worried about the impact of drug abuse not only fail to reduce the amount of drug abuse but actually exacerbate the problem”. There is no question that legalization is a risky policy, since it may lead to an increase in the number of people who abuse drugs. But that is a risk, not a certainty. At the same time, current drug-control policies are bailing and new proposals promise only to be costlier and more repressive. We know that repealing the drug-prohibition laws would eliminate or greatly reduce many of the ills that people commonly identify as part and parcel of the “drug problem”. Yet legalization is repeatedly dismissed without any attempt to evaluate it openly and objectively. The past 20 years have demonstrated that a drug policy shaped by exaggerated rhetoric designed to arouse fear has only led to our current disaster. Unless we are willing to honestly evaluate our options, including various legalization strategies, we will run a still greater risk: we may never find the best solution for our drug problems. II. Answer the questions. 1. What happens when something is banned? 2. Who gets enormous profits from illegal drugs? 3. What is the worst thing about drug abuse in America? 4. Are most of the actions to reduce the amount of drug abuse successful? 5. Is it true that legalization is a risky policy? Why? 6. What should we do to find the best solution for our drug problems? III. Read Text 4B. Drugs Should Not Be Legalized media coverage -hk\_s_gb_\i_qZlb espose -ih^^_j`b\Zlvhl^Z\ZlvkydZdhfm-gb[m^v^_em merit -aZkem]Z^hklhbgkl\h enforcement -^Z\e_gb_ijbgm`^_gb_ interdict -aZij_l proponent -klhjhggbdaZsblgbd
21
relapse -ih\lhj_gb_ rape -bagZkbeh\Zgb_ pervasive -jZkijhkljZgyxsbckyih\kx^m illicit -g_aZdhggucaZij_szgguc menace -m]jhaZhiZkghklv M.D. - Doctor of Medicine superficial -ih\_joghklguc\g_rgbc muster -ijh\_jylvkh[bjZlv The American public has been bombarded by considerable media coverage espousing the merits of legalizing illegal drugs. Their main point: Look at the law enforcement money we would save by not having to interdict illegal drugs; not having to deal with drug dealers; etc. Our police would be breed up, our court systems relieved of overloads, and our jails emptied out. However, if we did save law enforcement money, we would merely have to transfer it into the health (and hospitals) system because of the dramatically increased physical and psychological damage done to our population, the inevitable outcome of soaring drug use if illegal drugs were legalized. Dr. Robert Dupont, M.D., puts it like this: “We now have two legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco. We have 113 million current users of alcohol, and 60 million users of cigarettes. We have 18 million marijuana users and 6 million cocaine users. The reason marijuana and cocaine use is so much lower is because they are illegal drugs. Cocaine and marijuana are more attractive than alcohol and tobacco. If we remove the prohibition of illegality, we would have a number of users of marijuana and cocaine similar to that of tobacco and alcohol. Legalization proponents make the assumption that the only problem with marijuana and cocaine is the laws forbidding their use. The point they miss is that the problem is not the drug laws, but use of the drugs. If they remove the prohibition, use will grow explosively.” Whereas one out of ten alcohol users become alcoholics, one out of four users of cocaine become addicted. If, for example, cocaine became legalized and use rose from 6 million to 60 million, this would mean we would have 15 million addicts in need of treatment without prospects for a complete cure, constantly relapsing. Nor would legalization of drugs necessarily lessen work on the enforcement front. As police and hospital Emergency Room records clearly show, use of crack, LSD, PCP, etc., increases crime of the most disastrous variety: murder, child abuse, rape and wife-beating. We need to muster all our national forces and resourses to combat the pervasive menace of illegal drugs. The last thing we need in this crisis in the war
22
on drugs is a diversion of our efforts by fruitless discussion of legalization of illicit drugs. When the superficial arguments of the would-be legalizers are examined in the light of experience and common sense, the conclusion becomes strikingly clear: legalization is not the answer. It is in every respect the opposite of the answer. IV. Answer the questions. 1. What are the merits of legalizing illegal drugs as legalization proponents think? 2. What are two legal drugs at the present time? 3. What would we have if we removed the prohibition of illegality? 4. Do we need to muster all our national forces and resources to combat the pervasive menace of illegal drugs. 5. What is the last thing we need in this crisis in the war on drugs? 6. Is legalization the best solution for all our drug problems? V. You have read two texts having different points of view. What about you? What do you think on this point?
23
Bibliography. David C. Anderson “Probation Can Be an Effective Prison Alternative”, Criminal Justice, 1989, pp. 7-10. Sally T. Hillsman & Judith A Greene “Fines Can Be an Effective Prison Alternative”, Criminal Justice, 1989, pp. 11-14. Dana Joel “Prisons Should Be Privately Run”, Criminal Justice, 1989, pp. 23-26. John J. DiIulio Jr. “Prisons Should Not Be Privately Run”, Criminal Justice, 1989, pp. 27-36. Peggy Mann “Drugs Should Not Be Legalized”, Criminal Justice, 1989, pp. 6972. Gary Kleck “Gun Control Increases Crime”, Criminal Justice, 1989, pp. 93-98. John Henry Sloan “Gun Control Reduces Crime”, Criminal Justice, 1989, pp. 99102.
&hklZ\bl_ev IhlZemcfbljb_\gZ
