LESSON 2. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT
abolitionist
acupuncture
affray
aiding and abetting
armed robbery
arson
assault
attempted murder
battery
blackmail
bomb hoax
breach of the Official Secrets Act
buck a trend
burglary
capital crime
child abandonment
child abuse
coddling
community Service
compensate victims for
contempt of Court
counterfeiting notes and coins
criminal damage
criminal negligence
death-row inmates
defraud
deterrent
diversion
domestic violence
drug trafficking
embezzlement
enact a law
espionage
execution
expiation
extortion
felony
first-time offender
forgery
fraud
good time credits
hamstrung
hijacking
hostage-taking
identity theft
impose a fine
incarceration
indeterminate sentence
indictable offence
indiscriminate application
infraction
kidnapping
latitude
law enforcement officials
leeway
legal constraints
life in prison
manslaughter
misdemeanor
mugging
murder
obscenity
obstruction of justice
parking offence
penitentiary
perjury
person crime
petty crime
possession of a firearm
possession of firearm
principal rationales
probation
property crimes
public order offence
repeal
repeat offender
restitution
retentionist
retribution
revamp
riot
road traffic offences
robbery
sedition
sentencing guidelines
shoplifting
slander and libel
slap on the wrist,
small-time criminal
solicitation
stand by
statutory rape
stiffen sentences
stirring up racial hatred
summary offence
suspended sentence
tack on
theft
treason
uproar
unleash criminals
vehicular manslaughter
violent disorder
wacky
LESSON 3. LAW AND THE INTERNET
apathy
armchair (adj.)
assault
balk at smth.
bogus company
bottom line
card and bank fraud
car immobilizer
CCTV
charity fraud con (n.)
child abuse
crack into a system
crime rate
criminologist
cyber terrorism
cybercrime
cyberextortion
cyberlaw
cyber-security
cyberstalking
cyberwarfare
dating fraud
“debut” crime
deploy (v.)
disseminate (v.)
espionage
extortion
fake friend-request
fall in line with
financial scam
fraud
fraudster
hack (v.)
hacker
harassment
heyday
house alarm
identity theft infringement of privacy
internet marketing and retail fraud
keep cyberattacks quiet
keep pace with smth./smb.
law-enforcement agency
|
|
legal grey area
mitigate (v.)
murky
nuts and bolts
on the up and up
online abuse
paucity
perpetrator
phishing
piracy
pirated software
pit smth./smb. against smth./smb.
plummet
purchase fraud
reputation damage
rife (adj.)
run rampant
saturated with smth.
security breach
security vulnerbilities
slick
social engineering
spammer
tangible offence
teeth-gnashing
tweak oneself
unauthorized access
unauthorized music downloading
underreporting
unsolicited
virus
wickedness
"work-at-home" scams
LESSON 4. ETHICAL ASPECTS OF LAW
active euthanasia
affordable
archive (v.)
at a gut level
attempted murder
bar from using smth.
blurry
computer geek
confluence
contentious
deliberate euthanasia
facile
gain statutory/case support
harassment litigation
inalienable rights
intrusion
inure smb. to smth.
invasive scrutiny
killer app
landmark ruling
liability
liable for murder
manslaughter
murder by poisoning
nascent debate
numb smb. to smth.
outweigh (v.)
passive euthanasia
plaintiff
pop up (v.)
pressure cooker
privacy
revolve around smth.
scattershot
set up a legal architecture
statutory
sue (v.)
surveillance
tailored to smth.
third-party companies
transgression
treasure trove
treat shabbily
trumped by
user-appropriate advertising
voluntary euthanasia
withdraw life support
Appendix 5
CASES FOR MOCK TRIALS
A mock trial is a simulated proceeding conducted by students to understand trial rules and processes. Mock trials have proven to be an effective learning tool for students of all grade levels. It helps them understand the law, practice critical thinking, and gain greater confidence with public speaking by assuming the roles of attorneys and witnesses in a fictional criminal or civil trial.
TASK: Choose one of the cases and have a mock trial in your group. As an alternative you can find information about a highly publicised case and act it out.
|
|
1. Friends Reunited User Pays Damages
A former teacher has won a pay-out over libelous remarks made in a "virtual conversation". Jim Murray, 68, successfully sued a former pupil for libel over comments made on the internet. He began court action against Jonathan Spencer, who has been ordered to pay ₤1,250 damages and ₤150 costs, after reading insults about himself on the Friends Reunited website.
The popular but controversial site aims to bring former classmates back together and give them a worldwide forum to discuss their school days.
Mr Spencer had posted messages claiming Mr Murray had been sacked after "making rude remarks about girls" and "strangling" a pupil.
Friends Reunited removed the comments after Mr Murray revealed he had retired from his job and the claims were untrue.
Mr Murray described the award as "peanuts". The former languages teacher said: "The issue is the evil of this website. "They are effectively putting a dagger in people's hands. "When challenged they simply say they have removed the dagger - the wound is still there. "This has been a fight for my good name against a giant like Friends Reunited. "If the judge had awarded me Ј5,000 the judiciary would have thought that was opening the floodgates to this sort of case. "So instead I was given derisory damages and that way people will be put off by the cost and trouble they have to go to to clear their name. "Mr Spencer has opened a can of worms. "He has brought disgrace on himself, his family and his school. "I am pressing his education authority to do something about him."
Mr Murray represented himself in the libel action at Lincoln County Court. He had already rejected cash offers of Ј400 and later Ј1,000, and a written apology from Mr Spencer. Mr Murray, who taught at Ridgewood Comprehensive, Doncaster, South Yorkshire, until 1983, had learned about his ex-pupil's comments from friends.
Mr Spencer - now himself a teacher at a school in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear - admitted the insults were libelous but claimed damages should be nominal. He said Friends Reunited had only carried them for a day and they would have been seen by very few people.
|
|
But District Judge Andrew Maw said Mr Murray had a right to feel aggrieved. The judge said the proceedings were "difficult and novel" and that no-one had been able to find any relevant cases preceding it.
Дата добавления: 2018-04-05; просмотров: 300; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!