Vocabulary

1. causation – причинение

2. perverse – ошибочный, неправильный, превратный

3. instigation – подстрекательство

4. to kneel down – преклонять колени, становиться на колени

5. a fingerprint – отпечаток пальца

6. numb – оцепенелый, онемелый

7. to sniff – сопеть, (презрительно) фыркать, нюхать, чуять

8. nightmare – кошмар

9. to swing – качать(ся), размахивать

10. engander – подверать опасности

11. elusive – неуловимый, уклончивый

12. credible – вероятный, заслуживающий доверия

13. to bleed – истекать кровью, кровоточить

14. raid - налет

15. a van – фургон, багажный вагон

16. balaclavas – вязаный шлем

17. chase – погоня, охота, преследование

18. kerb – обочина

19. profusely – обильно, щедро, чрезмерно

20. almighty – всемогущий, очень сильный, ужасный

21. to shove – толкать (ся), пихать

22. to wrench – вывертывать, вырывать, - open - взламывать

23. to barge into – быстро вбежать, удариться, врезаться, неожиданно встретить кого-л.

24. screech – визг, скрип

Task 1. Match the following headings with the sections of the text below:

• Psychological and psychiatric theories

• Biological theories

• Multiple causation theory

• Social environment theories

• Theological and ethical theories

• Climatic theory

The Causes of Crime.

1. No one knows why crime occurs. The oldest theory, based on theology and ethics, is that criminals are perverse persons who deliberately commit crimes or who do so at the instigation of the devil or other evil spirits. Although this idea has been discarded by modern criminologists, it persists among uniformed people and provides the rationale for the harsh punishments still meted out to criminals in many parts of the world.

2. Since the 18^th century, various scientific theories have been advanced to explain crime. One of the first efforts to explain crime on scientific, rather than theological, grounds was made at the end of the 18^th century by the German physician and anatomist Franz Joseph gall, who tried to establish relationships between skull structure and criminal proclivities. This theory, popular during the 19^th century, is now discredited and has been abandoned. A more sophisticated theory – a biological one – was developed late in the 19^th century by the Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso, who asserted that crimes were committed by persons who are born with certain recognizable hereditary physical traits. Lombroso’s theory was disproved early in the 20^th century by the British criminologist Charles Goring. Goring’s comparative study of jailed criminals and law-abiding persons established that so-called criminal types, with innate dispositions to crime, do not exist. Recent scientific studies have tended to confirm Goring’s findings. Some investigators still hold, however, that specific abnormalities of the brain and of the endocrine system contribute to a person’s inclination toward criminal activity.

3. Another approach to an explanation of crime was initiated by the French political philosopher Montesquieu, who attempted to relate criminal behavior to natural or physical environment. His successors have gathered evidence tending to show that crimes against person, such as homicide, are relatively more numerous in warm climates, whereas crimes against property, such as theft, are more frequent in colder regions. Other studies seem to indicate that the incidence of crime declines in direct ratio to drops in barometric pressure, to increased humidity, and to higher temperature.

4. Many prominent criminologists of the 19^th century, particularly those associated with the Socialist movement, attributed crime mainly to the influence of poverty. They pointed out that persons who are unable to provide adequately for themselves and their families through normal legal channels are frequently driven to theft, burglary, prostitution, and other offences. The incidence of crime especially tends to rise in times of widespread unemployment. Present-day criminologists take a broader and deeper view; they place the blame for most crimes on the whole range of environmental conditions associated with poverty. The living conditions of the poor, particularly of those in slums, are characterized by overcrowding, lack of privacy, inadequate play space and recreational facilities, and poor sanitation. Such conditions engender feelings of deprivation and hopelessness and are conducive to crime as a means of escape. The feeling is encouraged by the example set by those who have escaped to what appears to be the better way of life made possible by crime.

Some theorists relate the incidence of crime to the general state of a culture, especially the impact of economic crises, wars, and revolutions and the general sense of insecurity and uprootedness to which these forces give rise. As a society becomes more unsettled and its people more restless and fearful of the future, the crime rate tends to rise. This is particularly true of juvenile crime, as the experience of the United States since World War II has made evident.

5. The final major group of theories is psychological and psychiatric. Studies by such 20^th century investigators as the American criminologist Bernard Glueck and the British psychiatrist William Healy have indicated that about one-fourth of a typical convict population is psychotic, neurotic, or emotionally unstable and another one-fourth is mentally deficient. These emotional and mental conditions do not automatically make people criminals, but do, it is believed, make them more prone to criminality. Recent studies of criminals have thrown further light on the kinds of emotional disturbances that may lead to criminal behavior.

6. Since the mid-20^th century, the notion that crime can be explained by any single theory has fallen into disfavour among investigators. Instead, experts incline to so-called multiple factor, or multiple causation theories. They reason that crime springs from a multiplicity of conflicting and converging influences – biological, psychological, cultural, economic and political. The multiple causations explanations seem more credible than the earlier, simpler theories. An understanding of the causes of crime is still elusive, however, because the interrelationship of causes is difficult to determine.

Task 2. Write down Russian (or Kazakh) equivalents for the words and expressions in bold type, given in the text above.

Task 3. Find in the texts above the English equivalents for the following words and expressions and reproduce the context in which they are used:

1. мошенничество

2. кража

3. убийство

4. кража со взломом

5. сравнительный анализ преступников и законопослушных граждан

6. соотнести преступное поведение с факторами окружающей среды

7. преступления против человека

8. преступления против собственности

9. совершать преступления умышленно

10. некоторые узнаваемые наследуемые черты

11. выдающиеся ученые-криминологи

12. ряд условий

13. уровень преступности

14. быть склонным к преступной деятельности

15. пролить свет на проблему

16. теория многообразия факторов

17. достоверная теория

Task 4. Find in the text all word combinations with the following words:

• research

• study

• theory

Reproduce the contexts in which they were used. Make up your own sentences with these words.

Task 5. Answer the following questions:

1. What concepts formed the basis of the earliest criminological theories?

2. How did the biological theories develop?

3. What was Montesquieu’s approach to causes of crime?

4. What views on crime predominated in the 19^th century?

5. How did criminological theories develop in the 20^th century?

6. What is the relationship between the mental and emotional state of a person and his or her inclinations to crime?

7. What are the latest views on the causes of crime?

Task 6. Render the following passage into English paying special attention to the words and expressions in bold type:

Преступность и ее причины

Преступность и ее причины могут быть изучены на индивидуальном, групповом и социальном уровнях. Им, следовательно, могут быть даны психологическое, социологическое и философское объяснения. Эти объяснения не противоречат друг другу, а дополняют одно другое, позволяя проанализировать причины преступности с различных сторон.

Рассматривая эту проблему на индивидуальном уровне, можно обозначить причины преступности как конфликт поведения человека с социальной средой.

Когда человек попадает в проблемную ситуацию, он часто не находит решения возникших сложностей и выбирает преступный путь.

Но возникает естественный вопрос: а почему личность формируется таким образом? И почему возникают проблемные ситуации, ставящие человека перед трудным выбором? Ответить на эти вопросы невозможно, если не обратиться к изучению современного общества. При этом очевидно, что в качестве причин преступности выступают и социально-экономические, и политические, и духовные факторы, тесно связанные друг с другом.

Обстоятельствами, ведущими к преступному поведению, считаются: антиобщественное поведение родителей; алкоголизм и нервно-психические заболевания родителей; низкий уровень культуры в семье.

Негативными особенностями личности и поведения считаются: прежняя судимость; совершение иных противоправных поступков; негативное отношение к нравственным ценностям; злобность, грубость и мстительность; пьянство, употребление наркотиков, азартные игры.

Итак, после того, как мы узнали о криминологии достаточно многое, нетрудно заключить, что преступность может возникнуть на основе взаимодействия личности и социальной среды.

DEBATE

All criminals are perverse people!

Prepare your arguments for or against the statement above.

Divide into two groups – pro and con, and conduct a debate.

Appoint the “Chair” of the debate who will give the floor to the speakers of both terms.

Task 7. Read the text ‘One step at a time”. Use dictionary if necessary.

Task 8. Retell this story in detail. Comment this story as a professional lawyer.

One step at a time

Joan, who is 45, is married with two sons. In 1987 her younger son Barry, aged sixteen, was sent to prison for killing an old woman. This is Joan’s story.

On the Thursday our neighbour, an old lady, was murdered. The police questioned people in the neighbourhood, and the following Wednesday it was Barry’s turn. He’d known her quite well and used to visit her often. He’d clear the snow for her in winter; take her a card and chocolates at Christmas. Barry was a kind boy; he’d never been in any sort of trouble.

He and my husband went to the police station at about seven in the evening. At 11.30 pm a policeman came round to the house to tell me I was needed at the station. They took me into an office – my husband was there, and he told me. The police said they’d found a fingerprint in some blood that proved it was Barry. It seemed as if the bottom had immediately dropped out of my world.

The policeman said we must listen to what lie was telling us and I told him I couldn’t. I said that I’d finished with Barry – that if he could do that to an old lady he wasn’t my son any more. They said Barry needed our help more than ever and that we must support him. People say the police are hard, but they were very kind to us.

We were at the police station until four in the morning. We only saw Barry for a few minutes that night and then not until the next evening when he’d finished making his statement. When we went in, he was sitting with his head down. He glanced up and I honestly expected him to look different. His eyes were so sad. I knelt down at his side and put my arms around him. My husband cried non – stop. I didn’t cry. I was numb and stayed like that for days.

Barry wouldn’t hurt a spider. He’s a gentle, caring person, kind – hearted and sensitive. That was his trouble. He was very depressed – he was about to leave school and was worried about getting a job. Later we learnt that lots of other things were worrying Barry: his feelings about my divorce from his father, the fact that his father had stopped visiting when Barry was four, and jealousy of his older brother. He was at a painful age. And then he’d sniff glue or lighter fuel, and it just opened the gates, letting him release all that anger and fear.

Jim, his brother, had caught him glue-sniffing a few weeks before it happened and had told him off. He’d told Barry that if he found him doing it again he would tell me and my husband. “If only he’d told us,” I’d say to myself.

At first we had no idea why he had done it. It was two and a half years before he told us the truth. At the beginning he said he’d been taking the dog for a walk at the time. Then they found the fingerprint. The story he told the police was that he’d taken two birds to show the old lady. She’d opened the door to let him in, the cage had caught on the door, sent it swinging back and she’d knocked her head – an accident at first. Then, because she was in pain, Barry hit her to stop her feeling anything – as you do to an injured animal. He has said since that it seemed he wasn’t actually doing it but was standing back watching someone else kill her.

For months afterwards I thought a miracle would happen, that the police would say: “we’ve made a mistake and it wasn’t Barry.’ I really believed at the time that someone else had done it. I knew Barry must have been there because of the fingerprint, but I thought that someone else had committed the crime. His solicitor thought that there might have been someone else. I thought:

“I hope to god there isn’t.” I wouldn’t like anyone else to go through what we’ve been through.

Barry was charged with murder on the Thursday, and next day we, decided to sell our house. That was in May. We stayed there till August as we couldn’t move into our new house until September. It was terrible. The old lady’s house was only two doors away, and each time I had to walk past it I pictured what had happened. The bus regularly stopped at the traffic lights opposite our front window and all the heads inside would turn towards our house. I would start shaking. If I’m upset now, I still do. I expect people to throw things through the window.

The trial seemed to go very quickly, but actually it was about half an hour. They read out a list of the old lady’s injuries, which really upset me. You think to yourself, “My son’s done that.” Barry pleaded guilty to murder. I don’t remember what he said during the trial - I don’t know if he said anything. He didn’t move at all. It was November when he got his sentence indeterminate life.

At first I blamed the glue, but that was too easy. Barry doesn’t; he will now tell you: ‘I did it, and I’m responsible. “That, to me, is a really big step forward. But there are still things we’ll never know. I said to him a few months ago: “Do you feel any easier – have you come to terms with what you’ve done?” And he said: “No, not one little bit, Mum.” That was more than three years later. He can’t forgive himself and I don’t think he ever will.

I’m lucky; I’ve got a very good husband and another very good son. It’s brought us closer as a family. Jim doesn’t write to Barry but he visits regularly, which is very important to me.

Sometimes you think you’re going mad. For the first couple of years, as soon as I woke up I thought: Barry’s in prison. There were days when I couldn’t stop crying. Sundays were the worst. It was always just Barry and me before; Sam and Jim used to go out in the evening. Barry used to have a bath and wash his hair and I’d blow-dry it for him. We’d sit and watch TV, or play cards … So on Sundays I became full of anxiety and despair.

I planned to kill Barry at one time. He was so thin and ill that I was going to shoot him. I had no idea how to get a gun. All I knew was that my son was in a terrible state about what he’d done. He wasn’t sleeping much and when he did he had nightmares. If I asked him anything painful he’d turn away from me. I just wanted to end his pain.

But I’ve had to stand back, let go. I’ve realised that I can’t serve Barry’s sentence for him. He has to do it himself. But he also has to know that we will always be here.

We don’t think about his release date because it’s too far away, but his probation officer tells us that we must talk about it from time to time and know that it is going to come one day. I know there will be problems, but we’ll just have to take things one step at a time.’

Task 9. Writing a report.

There was an armed raid on a security van outside Barclays Bank, Newtown, today. You are a reporter, and interviewed three witnesses. From their accounts write a report of the crime, giving the facts and quoting the witnesses where relevant.

PC Chris Green

‘At about 11.17 am we heard on our car radio that a security van had been hijacked as it was being unloaded at Barclays Bank in Albion Road. We immediately rushed to the scene, just in time to see the security guards being locked into their own van by two men in grey balaclavas. They leapt into a white Ford Escort, dropping at least two bags. There must have been a third man behind the wheel, and they drove off at great speed. Of course, we gave chase, but the guy in the back started shooting at us. We were unarmed and couldn’t return the shots. One shot narrowly missed PC Dixon, the radio operator, and as they turned a corner, another shot penetrated the driver’s door and hit me in the right leg. I only just managed to stop the car and pull over to the kerb. I was bleeding profusely and in great pain. I don’t remember anything after that – I must have blacked out.

Liz Leigh, a secretary

‘I was just coming out of the bank, and putting my money into my purse when I heard this almighty crash. It must have been just after 11.00 because I’d slipped out of the office in my coffee break. I looked up and saw this white car crashing into the front of the security van. Three men got out. Two of them were in balaclavas, but they were young. One was wearing jeans and was thin, and the other had a black leather jacket and was wearing trainers. He was a plumper. I didn’t get a good look at the third one because I backed into the doorway of the bank. They yelled, ‘Get out! Get out! ‘at the driver of the van, and he obviously didn’t move fast enough because they wrenched open the door and dragged him out and held a gun at his head while he opened the back of the van. Then they went wild, shoving him and his partner in the back while they grabbed at the bags of money. There were bags of money all over the street. Then they heard the police siren and started screaming at each other. ‘Get a move on!’ and dropping even more money about the place. I was terrified they’d notice me and point the gun at me. When the police arrived, they drove off. I think I heard some shots from down the street. I was stunned, but I got the number of the car. It was B180 VHS.

Kevin Billings, a hospital porter

‘I didn’t know what was happening. I thought they were making a film at first. I came round the corner, and this fellow barged into me and knocked me over. He had a shotgun, and he fired it into the air and at the same time shouted, ‘Keep down or I’ll shoot you!’ He was in his forties, graying, and he had a Scottish accent. That’s when I realized it wasn’t a film. I really thought I was going to die. He kept his foot on top of me while his mates rushed past into a car. I had my head down on the pavement. I couldn’t see anything, and I kept expecting a final shot in the head. I heard sirens and there was a banging of doors and the screech of tyres and they were gone. I heard shots then, but down the road. Two, I think. I feel really lucky to be alive.’

CPCП 12