Capital punishment: for and against.

    The ultimate penalty is death (capital punishment). It is carried out by hanging (Kenya, for example); electrocution, gassing or lethal injection (U.S); beheading (Saudi Arabia); or shooting (China). Although most countries still have a death penalty, 35 (including almost every European nation) have abolished it; 18 retain it only for exceptional crimes such as wartime offences; and 27 no longer carry out executions even when a death sentence has been passed. In other words, almost half the countries of the world have ceased to use the death penalty. The UN1 has declared itself in favour of abolition, Amnesty International actively campaigns for abolition, and the issue is now the focus of great debate.

    Supporters of capital punishment believe that death is a just punishment for certain serious crimes. Many also believe that it deters others from committing such crimes. Opponents argue that execution is cruel and uncivilized. Capital punishment involves not only the pain of dying but also the sentence will be carried out. Opponents also argue that there is no evidence that it deters people from committing murder any more than imprisonment does. A further argument is that, should a mistake be made, it is too late to rectify it once the execution has taken place. In 1987, two academics published a study showing that 23 innocent people had been executed in the United States. Research has shown that capital punishment is used inconsistently.

    In addition, while in some countries young people are not sent to prison but to special juvenile detention centres, in Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, Bangladesh, Barbados and the United States children under 18 have been legally put to death.

    As the debate about capital punishment continues, the phenomenon of death row (people sentenced but still alive) increases. In 1999, no one was executed in Japan, but three people were sentenced to death, bringing the total number on death row to fifty.

    The debate also involves the question of what punishment is for. Is the main aim to deter? This was certainly the case in 18th century England when the penalty for theft was supposed to frighten people from stealing and compensate for inabilities to detect and catch thieves. Is it revenge or retribution? Is it to keep criminals out of society? Or is it to reform and rehabilitate them?

What is the law of tort?

    The law of tort deals with civil wrongs. A wrong is something that causes harm or damage to another person. The word ‘harm’ and ‘damage’ have the same meaning. A person who suffers harm or damage is hurt in some way. This hurt might be physical in nature, but it might be some other type of hurt, such as causing someone to lose money. This area of law is based on the following principle. In situations where I cause harm to another person, I may be liable to compensate him or her that harm, even in situations when:

    - I do not have a contract with that person and

    - I did not commit a criminal act against that person.

    Let’s say that I am shopping in a large supermarket and an employee of the supermarket washed the floor five minutes ago. The floor is not completely dry. I do not know about this. There is no sign to warn me that the floor is wet. I slip on the floor and hurt my back. I have to go to hospital and I cannot go to work for a month. This is a situation where I need to make a claim based on the principles of the law of tort. I am hurt physically and I have perhaps lost money, all because of someone else’s conduct. Conduct is a more formal word that means behaviour.

    The law of tort says that I must not harm another person either because I choose to harm him or her, or because I was not careful enough. In other words, I am liable for any harm that I cause to another person either from having intention to cause him, or from negligence.

    How is this area of law different from criminal law or contract law? The answer to this question is that there is a lot of overlap between the law of tort, contract law and criminal law. Overlap means that these areas of law include some things that are the same. However, an important difference between the law of tort and criminal law is that the main purpose of the law of tort is to compensate people who suffer harm and not to punish people who caused this harm. An important difference between the law of tort and contract law is that the law of tort makes us liable to people with whom we have no previous relationship.

    Закон деликта рассматривает гражданские правонарушения. Неправильно то, что причиняет вред или ущерб другому лицу. Слово «вред» и «ущерб» имеет тот же смысл. Лицо, которому причинен вред или ущерб не пострадал в некотором роде. Эта боль может быть физический характер, но она может быть другой тип боли, например, вызывая кого-то потерять деньги. Эта область права основывается на следующем принципе. В ситуациях, где я причинить вред другому лицу, я может подлежать компенсации, ему или ей, что вред, даже в ситуациях, когда:
— У меня контракт с этим лицом и
— Я не совершал уголовного деяния против этого лица.

    Допустим, что я хожу по магазинам в большом супермаркете и работник супермаркета мыть пол пять минут назад. Пол не полностью высохнет. Я не знаю, об этом. Там нет никаких признаков, чтобы предупредить меня, что пол мокрый. Я поскользнуться на полу и повредил спину. Я должен идти в больницу, и я не могу работать в течение месяца. Это ситуация, когда мне нужно сделать заявку, основанную на принципах деликтного права. Я пострадал физически, и я, возможно, потеряли деньги, все из-за чужого поведения. Поведение является более формальным словом, которое означает поведение.

    Закон деликта говорит, что я не должен причинить вред другому лицу либо потому, что я хочу причинить ему вред или ее, или потому, что я не был достаточно осторожен. Другими словами, я ответственность за любой вред, который я причинить другому человеку, либо от того, намерения причинить ему или небрежности.

    Как это область права, отличного от уголовного права или договорного права? Ответ на этот вопрос в том, что есть много общего между деликтным правом, договорным правом и уголовного права. Перекрытие означает, что эти области прав включают в себя некоторые вещи, которые являются одинаковыми. Тем не менее, важное различие между законом деликта и уголовного права является то, что основной целью закона является деликта, чтобы компенсировать людям, которые страдают вред, а не наказывать людей, которые вызвали этот вред. Важное различие между законом деликта и договорного права является то, что закон деликта делает нас ответственность перед людьми, с которыми у нас нет предыдущих отношений.

The «McLibel» case.

    On 15 February 2005, the longest case in English legal history came to an end. The case lasted for an amazing nine years and six months, the longest case in either criminal or civil history. There were 313 days of legal argument in court and 20, 000 pages of court transcripts, which are the documents that record what happened in court. 130 witnesses gave oral evidence to the court. This case was based upon the law of tort.

    The case was famous all over the world because of the nickname that people gave to it. This nickname was ‘the McLibel case’. The claimant in the McLibel case was of course, McDonald’s, the chain of fast food restaurants. The case was so famous that the word ‘McLibel’ now appears in some respected English dictionaries.

    The facts of the case are as follows. The defendants in this case, Helen Steel and David Moris, belonged to a group of people who were worried about the environment and about the way that certain large corporations were behaving in relation to the environment. The group decided that the best way to tell public about this was to give out leaflets containing information about the problem. In 1990, Helen and David stood outside several McDonald’s restaurants in London. They gave leaflets to people who were in the area. The title of leaflets was ‘What’s wrong with McDonald’s: Everything they didn’t want you to know’.

    The problem was that the leaflets contained some very controversial claims. For example, the leaflet said that McDonald’s was partly to blame for the destruction of rainforests. It also claimed that McDonald’s food was unhealthy and eating too much of this food could give people health problems later in life.

    In 1990 McDonald’s issued a claim against Helen and David on the grounds of libel. The company did not need proof of damage, as libel is actionable per se. The libel trial started in 1994. There was no judgment until three years later. Helen and David were found to be guilty of libel. In 1999 Helen and David appealed, but again they were ordered to pay damages to McDonald’s.

    Helen and David refused to pay the damages. They decided instead to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The Strasbourg court made a decision that changed English law. The court decided that the English courts followed the correct procedure but that nevertheless, the trial in England was unfair. This was mainly because Helen and David were poor compared to a big corporation such as McDonald’s, which meant that they could not pay for an expensive legal team. As a result of this, Helen and David’s defence was not so well prepared. The court also ruled that Helen and David’s right to free expression was violated.

    The court awarded Helen and David damages of nearly $47, 000.

Different types of tort.

    A tort is a civil wrong that can be remedied by awarding damages (other remedies may also be available). These civil wrongs result in harm to a person or property that forms the basis of a claim by the injured party. The harm can be physical, emotional or financial. Examples of torts include medical negligence, negligent damage to private property and negligent misstatements causing financial loss.

    There are many specific torts, such as trespass, assault and negligence. Business torts include fraudulent misrepresentation, interference in contractual relations and unfair business practices.

    Torts fall into three general categories: intentional torts (e.g. unfair competition), negligent torts (e.g. causing an accident by failing to obey traffic rules) and strict liability torts (e.g. liability for making and selling defective products).

    Why some wrongs are dealt with by tort law (or the law of torts) and others considered criminal offences is the subject of some debate. However, there are certainly overlaps between tort law and criminal law. For example, a defendant can be liable to compensate for assault and battery in tort and also be punished for the criminal law offence of assault.

    Differences between tort law and criminal law include: the parties involved (the state brings an action in crime, a private individual brings an action in tort); the standard of proof (higher in criminal law); and the outcomes (a criminal action may result in a conviction and punishment, whereas an action in tort may result in liability on the part of the defendant and damages awarded to the claimant).

    The primary aims of tort law are to provide relief for the harm suffered and deter other potential tortfeasors from committing the same harms. The injured person may sue for both an injunction to stop the tortious conduct and for monetary damages.

    Depending on the jurisdiction, the damages awarded will be either compensatory or punitive. Compensatory damages are intended, as far as it is possible, to put the victim in the position he or she would have been in had the tort not occurred. Punitive damages are awarded to punish a wrongdoer. As well as compensation for damage to property, damages may also be awarded for: loss of earnings capacity, future expected losses, pain and suffering and reasonable medical expenses.

    Деликт является гражданским правонарушением, которое может быть исправлено путем присуждения убытков (другие средства правовой защиты также могут быть доступны). Эти гражданские правонарушения приводят к нанесению вреда человеку или имуществу, которая лежит в основе иска потерпевшей стороной. Вред может быть физическим, эмоциональным или финансовым. Примеры деликтов включают медицинскую халатность, небрежное ущерб частной собственности и небрежной неточности вызывают финансовые потери.

    Есть много конкретных правонарушений, например проступок, нападение и халатности. Бизнес правонарушения включают в себя намеренное введение в заблуждение, вмешательства в договорные отношения и недобросовестную деловую практику.

    Правонарушение делится на три основные категории: преднамеренные деликты (например недобросовестная конкуренция), небрежные деликты (например, в результате чего в аварию, будучи не подчиняться правилами дорожного движения) и нарушения строгой ответственности (например, ответственность за изготовление и продажи некачественной продукции).

    Почему некоторые ошибки рассматриваются по деликтному права (или права деликтов) и другие считали, уголовные преступления, является предметом дебатов. Тем не менее, есть, конечно, совпадения между деликтным правом и уголовным правом. Например, , обвиняемый может нести ответственность за выплату компенсации за нанесение телесных повреждений из деликта, а также будут наказаны по уголовному праву за физическое насилие.

    Различия между деликтным правом и уголовным правом включают: участвующие стороны (государство предъявит иск в преступлении, частное лицо предъявит иск в деликте); вещественные доказывания (выше в уголовном праве); и результаты (уголовное дело может привести к осуждению и наказанию, в то время как действие деликта может привести к ответственности со стороны ответчика и ущерба, присужденным заявитель).

    Основными целями деликтного права, в целях оказания чрезвычайной помощи за нанесенный ущерб, и предотвращения других потенциальных делинквенты от подобных последствий. Пострадавший может подать в суд и для судебного запрета, чтобы прекратить деликтное поведение и денежных убытков.

    В зависимости от юрисдикции, возмещение ущерба, будет либо компенсационных или штрафные. Компенсационные выплаты предназначены, насколько это возможно поместить жертву в позиции, которую он или она была бы в деликта не произошло. Штрафные убытки присуждаются наказать правонарушителя. А также компенсация за ущерб имуществу, ущерб может быть также присуждена за: потеря заработка потенциал, будущие ожидаемые потери, боль и страдания и разумные медицинские расходы.

⇐ Предыдущая123Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: