For example, the original Russian title ("Преступление и наказание") is not the direct equivalent to the English "Crime and Punishment". "Преступление" (Prestupléniye) is literally translated as 'a stepping across'. Перевод ПОЛУЧИЛ НАКАЗАНИЕ на английский: get the punishment, get detention, receive the punishment, get him, gets punished. punishment, penalty, chastisement, judgment, discipline, penance, plague. offers free real time quotes, portfolio, streaming charts, financial news, live stock market data and more.
В Британии ввели уголовное наказание за угрозы в интернете и издевательство над людьми с эпилепсией
онлайн новости последнего часа Подбор самых актуальных новостей на сегодня. Подробная информация о сериале Как избежать наказания за убийство на сайте Кинопоиск. offers free real time quotes, portfolio, streaming charts, financial news, live stock market data and more.
Penalty appeal eligibility
| Английские слова/лексика на тему «Виды преступлений и наказаний» — Crime and punishment | Преступление и наказание придумать ** английском ПОЖАЛУЙСТА!!!!! 25 просмотров. |
| Перевод "наказание" на английский | Подробная информация о сериале Как избежать наказания за убийство на сайте Кинопоиск. |
| Вы Арестованы! Штраф – Английское Словечко! | Free essay examples about Death Penalty Proficient writing team High-quality of every essay Largest database of free samples on PapersOwl. |
| Russian Politics & Diplomacy | Translated in English by Constance Garnett. Роман «Преступление и наказание» на английском языке. |
Crime and Punishment (Преступление и наказание). F. Dostoyevsky
UN-2 В рамках пенитенциарной системы телесные наказания являются противозаконными в качестве меры наказания за совершенное преступление и в качестве дисциплинарной меры в пенитенциарных учреждениях In the penal system, corporal punishment is unlawful as a sentence for crime and as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions MultiUn Кроме того, Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс гарантирует им доступ к адвокату, а также устанавливает, что заявления, сделанные под пыткой, не могут быть использованы в качестве доказательств, а Закон о компенсации в сфере уголовного наказания предусматривает, что все лица, незаконно задержанные или подвергнутые актам пытки во время нахождения под стражей, имеют право требовать материальной компенсации. In addition, they were guaranteed access to a lawyer by the Code of Criminal Procedure, which also stipulated that statements obtained through torture could not be used as evidence, and the Penal Compensation Act provided that any person unlawfully held in detention or tortured during detention had the right to request financial compensation. UN-2 Просьба представить информацию о мерах если таковые имели место , принятых для профилактики "дедовщины" в армии, а также пыток и других жестоких, бесчеловечных или унижающих достоинство видов обращения и наказания в вооруженных силах, осуществляемых должностными лицами или с их ведома, молчаливого согласия или одобрения, в результате которых жертвам причиняется серьезный физический и психический вред. Please provide information on the measures taken, if any, to prevent hazing dedovshchina in the military, as well as torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the armed forces, conducted by or with the consent, acquiescence or approval of officers, resulting in severe physical and mental harm to the victims.
UN-2 Дику нужно идти домой выполнять наказание. Dick has to go home and do his forfeit. It is to be noted that the severest punishment, that is eight years of imprisonment, is for the age group 15—18 and for the offenses which are punishable by death and life imprisonment for adults.
UN-2 Еще одной проблемой является дефицит официальных данных относительно применения Закона No 243.
Показать все опросы Штрафы английских игроков за скандальные высказывания в социальных сетях достигли 350 тысяч фунтов Дисциплинарные органы Футбольной ассоциации Англии за период с 2011 года оштрафовали английских футболистов на 350 тысяч фунтов стерлингов за недопустимые сообщения в социальных сетях, сообщает издание Guardian. Всего штрафы были выписаны за 121 сообщение, преимущественно внимание обращалось на записи в социальной сети Twitter. Больше всего пришлось заплатить бывшему защитнику "Челси" Эшли Коулу, который в 2012 году получил взыскание на 90 тысяч фунтов за оскорбление Футбольной ассоциации Англии.
Они используются с намерением либо заставить его сознаться в своем преступлении, или объяснить какое-то противоречие, в ходе его рассмотрения, или открыть его сообщников, или для какого-то метафизического и непонятного очищения от позора, или, наконец, для того, чтобы обнаружить и другие преступления, по которым его не обвиняли, но в которых он может быть виновным. Ни один человек не может быть осужденным, пока он не был признан виновным, и не может общество забрать у него защиту, пока не было доказано, что он нарушил условия, на которых она была предоставлена. С точки зрения закона, каждый человек невиновен, пока преступление не было доказано.
Преступления более действенно предотвратить, чем быть уверенным в строгости наказания. В той же мере как наказания становились более жестокими, сознание людей ставало более закаленными и бесчувственным. Вся жесткость является лишней и, следовательно, тиранической. Смертная казнь является пагубной для общества, она дает пример варварства. Если страсти, или необходимость войны, учит людей проливать кровь ближних, законы, которые призваны смягчить жестокость человечества, не должны увеличить его на примерах жестокости, тем более ужасно, что этот вид наказания, как правило, сопряжен с официальными зрелищами. Разве это не абсурдно, что законы, которые ненавидят и наказывают за убийство, должны, с тем чтобы предотвратить убийства, публично взять на себя убийство?
Please provide information on the measures taken, if any, to prevent hazing dedovshchina in the military, as well as torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the armed forces, conducted by or with the consent, acquiescence or approval of officers, resulting in severe physical and mental harm to the victims. UN-2 Дику нужно идти домой выполнять наказание. Dick has to go home and do his forfeit.
It is to be noted that the severest punishment, that is eight years of imprisonment, is for the age group 15—18 and for the offenses which are punishable by death and life imprisonment for adults. UN-2 Еще одной проблемой является дефицит официальных данных относительно применения Закона No 243. Хотя Ассоциация женщин — муниципальных депутатов Боливии АКОБОЛ и является органом, принимающим жалобы в связи со случаями преследований по политическим мотивам и политического насилия в отношении женщин, только 22 из 225 таких жалоб, поступивших в 2010—2013 годах, стали основанием для судебных процессов с целью наказания лиц, допустивших правонарушения. Еще 15 жалоб находятся на рассмотрении в административных органах, а остальные 184 не имели никаких последствий. Moreover, official data are lacking regarding the enforcement of Act No.
The Times & The Sunday Times Homepage
Read the latest headlines, breaking news, and videos at , the definitive source for independent journalism from every corner of the globe. Англичанину, осквернившему памятник советскому футболисту Федору Черенкову, грозит административное наказание, сообщает ТАСС. Перевод слова НАКАЗАНИЕ на английский язык, смотреть в русско-английском словаре. Английский перевод штраф или наказание – Русский-Английский Словарь и поисковая система, английский перевод.
Вы Арестованы! Штраф – Английское Словечко!
Drag racing - Уличные гонки со смертельным исходом 55. Failure to stop at a stop sign - Непредоставление первенства проезда при знаке стоп 56. Driving on the wrong side of the road - Вождение по встречной полосе движения 57. Illegal passing - Нелегальный обгон 58. Driving a vehicle without proper registration - Вождение не зарегистрированных автомобилей 60. Driving without valid plates - Вождение без валидных номеров автомобиля 61. Unsafe passing - Небезопасный обгон 62. Excessive idling - Чрезмерная простоя мотора 63. Driving a non-street legal vehicle - Вождение не зарегистрированных автомобилей 64.
Handicapped parking violation - Нарушение правил обращения с инвалидами 65. Driving on the shoulder - Вождение по обочине 66. Animal road kill - Нарушение правил сброса животных трупов на дорогу 67. Littering from a vehicle - Сбрасывать мусор в процессе движения автомобиля 68. Parking in a fire lane - Парковка в пожароопасной зоне 71. Driving without a valid inspection sticker - Вождение без действующей Инспекционного контроля 72. Parking in a handicapped spot without proper tags - Парковка на инвалидном месте без соответствующих тэгов 73. Failure to yield to pedestrians - Непредоставление пешеходам первенства 74.
Reckless driving causing accidents - Беспечное вождение и дисциплинарные зоны в связи с авариями 75. Inadequate exhaust system - Наезд на трубы или несанкционированные модификации выхлопной системы 76. Failure to stop at a railroad crossing - Непредоставление перевода при переезде через железную дорогу 77. Failing to provide proof of insurance or registration - Не предоставление подтверждающих документов о страховке или регистрации 78. Driving with a suspended or revoked license - Вождение с отмененными или приостановленными правами 79. Parking in a no parking zone - Парковка в запрещенной зоне 80. Failure to maintain safety equipment - Нарушение правил оборудования для безопасности передвижения 81.
Подписывайтесь на новости футбола от Rusfootball. Новостях и Дзене. Все главные и интересные новости тут.
This Note examines the unique risks of these proposals—particularly with respect to people on probation and parole—and argues that RFID implants would constitute a systematic violation of individual privacy and bodily integrity. As a result, they would also violate the Fourth Amendment.
Они подавляют мышление, делают нас пассивными, убивают творчество. Есть ли решение? Перестаньте поглощать новости. News is bad for health In the past few decades, the fortunate among us have recognised the hazards of living with an overabundance of food obesity, diabetes and have started to change our diets. But most of us do not yet understand that news is to the mind what sugar is to the body. News is easy to digest. Unlike reading books and long magazine articles which require thinking , we can swallow limitless quantities of news flashes, which are bright-coloured candies for the mind. Today, we have reached the same point in relation to information that we faced 20 years ago in regard to food. We are beginning to recognise how toxic news can be. Новости вредны для вашего здоровья Их чтение приводит к появлению страха и агрессии, мешает реализации творческого потенциала и лишает способности мыслить глубоко. Новости — то же самое, что сахар для тела. Они легко усваиваются. СМИ кормят нас небольшими кусочками тривиальных фактов, которые, на самом деле, нас не касаются и не заслуживают внимания. Вот почему мы никогда не испытываем насыщения. В отличие от чтения книг и длинных журнальных статей над которыми приходится размышлять , мы можем проглотить огромное количество пустых новостей. News is irrelevant. Out of the approximately 10,000 news stories you have read in the last 12 months, name one that — because you consumed it — allowed you to make a better decision about a serious matter affecting your life, your career or your business. The point is: the consumption of news is irrelevant to you. The relevant versus the new is the fundamental battle of the current age. Media organisations want you to believe that news offers you some sort of a competitive advantage. Many fall for that. In reality, news consumption is a competitive disadvantage. The less news you consume, the bigger the advantage you have. Новости не имеют значения Примерно из 10 000 историй, которые вы прочитали в последние 12 месяцев, назовите одну, которая позволила вам принять лучшее решение в серьезном деле, влияющем на вашу жизнь, вашу карьеру, или ваш бизнес. Потребление новостей не имеет отношения к вам. На самом деле, потребление новостей — это конкурентный недостаток. Чем меньше вы потребляете новостей, тем больше у вас преимуществ. News has no explanatory power. News items are bubbles popping on the surface of a deeper world. Will accumulating facts help you understand the world? Sadly, no. The relationship is inverted. The more «news factoids» you digest, the less of the big picture you will understand. Новости ничего не объясняют Новости — как пузырьки на поверхности большого мира. Разве обработка несущественных фактов поможет вам понять мир? Чем больше фрагметов новостей вы поглотите, тем меньшую картину мира для себя составите. Если бы большее количество кусков информации приводило к экономическому успеху, то журналисты были бы на верху пирамиды. Но не в нашем случае. News is toxic to your body. It constantly triggers the limbic system.
Russian Politics & Diplomacy
Примеры использования наказание в предложениях и их переводы. Любому лицу, финансирующему террористические акты, назначается наказание в виде лишения свободы сроком до 10 лет. Breaking news, live coverage, investigations, analysis, video, photos and opinions from The Washington Post. Subscribe for the latest on U.S. and international news, politics, business, technology, climate change, health and wellness, sports, science, weather, lifestyle and more. Новости, спорт и мнения из глобального издания The Guardian | News. Во время судебного разбирательства (court proceeding) выносят приговор (to pass verdict on smb) и назначают наказание (to mete out punishment to smb).
Стала известна возможная мера наказания английскому вандалу
| Срочно нужно 5 наказаний на английском языке? - Английский язык | Преступление и наказание придумать ** английском ПОЖАЛУЙСТА!!!!! 25 просмотров. |
| Legal Punishment (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) | Перевод слова НАКАЗАНИЕ на английский язык, смотреть в русско-английском словаре. |
| наказание — перевод на английский и произношение, Примеры перевода с русского на английский язык | Top stories in the U.S. and world news, politics, health, science, business, music, arts and culture. Nonprofit journalism with a mission. This is NPR. |
Legal Punishment
Translated in English by Constance Garnett. Роман «Преступление и наказание» на английском языке. Автор Ф. Перевод: Констанция Гарнетт.
First, there is an obviously intelligible justificatory relationship between wrongdoing and condemnation: whatever puzzles there might be about other attempts to explain the idea of penal desert, the idea that it is appropriate to condemn wrongdoing is surely unpuzzling. For other examples of communicative accounts, see especially von Hirsch 1993: ch. For critical discussion, see M. Davis 1991; Boonin 2008: 171—80; Hanna 2008; Matravers 2011a. Two crucial lines of objection face any such justification of punishment as a communicative enterprise. The first line of critique holds that, whether the primary intended audience is the offender or the community generally, condemnation of a crime can be communicated through a formal conviction in a criminal court; or it could be communicated by some further formal denunciation issued by a judge or some other representative of the legal community, or by a system of purely symbolic punishments which were burdensome only in virtue of their censorial meaning. Is it because they will make the communication more effective see Falls 1987; Primoratz 1989; Kleinig 1991?
And anyway, one might worry that the hard treatment will conceal, rather than highlight, the moral censure it should communicate see Mathiesen 1990: 58—73. One sort of answer to this first line of critique explains penal hard treatment as an essential aspect of the enterprise of moral communication itself. Punishment, on this view, should aim not merely to communicate censure to the offender, but to persuade the offender to recognise and repent the wrong he has done, and so to recognise the need to reform himself and his future conduct, and to make apologetic reparation to those whom he wronged. His punishment then constitutes a kind of secular penance that he is required to undergo for his crime: its hard treatment aspects, the burden it imposes on him, should serve both to assist the process of repentance and reform, by focusing his attention on his crime and its implications, and as a way of making the apologetic reparation that he owes see Duff 2001, 2011b; see also Garvey 1999, 2003; Tudor 2001; Brownless 2007; Hus 2015; for a sophisticated discussion see Tasioulas 2006. This type of account faces serious objections see Bickenbach 1988; Ten 1990; von Hirsch 1999; Bagaric and Amarasekara 2000; Ciocchetti 2004; von Hirsch and Ashworth 2005: ch. The second line of objection to communicative versions of retributivism — and indeed against retributivism generally — charges that the notions of desert and blame at the heart of retributivist accounts are misplaced and pernicious. One version of this objection is grounded in scepticism about free will. In response, retributivists may point out that only if punishment is grounded in desert can we provide more than contingent assurances against punishment of the innocent or disproportionate punishment of the guilty, or assurances against treating those punished as mere means to whatever desirable social ends see s. Another version of the objection is not grounded in free will scepticism: it allows that people may sometimes merit a judgement of blameworthiness. To this second version of the objection to retributivist blame, retributivists may respond that although emotions associated with retributive blame have no doubt contributed to various excesses in penal policy, this is not to say that the notion of deserved censure can have no appropriate place in a suitably reformed penal system.
After all, when properly focused and proportionate, reactive attitudes such as anger may play an important role by focusing our attention on wrongdoing and motivating us to stand up to it; anger-tinged blame may also serve to convey how seriously we take the wrongdoing, and thus to demonstrate respect for its victims as well as its perpetrators see Cogley 2014; Hoskins 2020. In particular, Hart 1968: 9—10 pointed out that we may ask about punishment, as about any social institution, what compelling rationale there is to maintain the institution that is, what values or aims it fosters and also what considerations should govern the institution. The compelling rationale will itself entail certain constraints: e. See most famously Hart 1968, and Scheid 1997 for a sophisticated Hartian theory; on Hart, see Lacey 1988: 46—56; Morison 1988; Primoratz 1999: ch. For example, whereas Hart endorsed a consequentialist rationale for punishment and nonconsequentialist side-constraints, one might instead endorse a retributivist rationale constrained by consequentialist considerations punishment should not tend to exacerbate crime, or undermine offender reform, etc. Alternatively, one might endorse an account on which both consequentialist and retributivist considerations features as rationales but for different branches of the law: on such an account, the legislature determines crimes and establishes sentencing ranges with the aim of crime reduction, but the judiciary makes sentencing decisions based on retributivist considerations of desert M. Critics have charged that hybrid accounts are ad hoc or internally inconsistent see Kaufman 2008: 45—49. In addition, retributivists argue that hybrid views that integrate consequentialist rationales with retributivist side-constraints thereby relegate retributivism to a merely subsidiary role, when in fact giving offenders their just deserts is a or the central rationale for punishment see Wood 2002: 303. Also, because hybrid accounts incorporate consequentialist and retributivist elements, they may be subject to some of the same objections raised against pure versions of consequentialism or retributivism. For example, insofar as they endorse retributivist constraints on punishment, they face the thorny problem of explaining the retributivist notion of desert see s.
Even if such side-constraints can be securely grounded, however, consequentialist theories of punishment face the broadly Kantian line of objection discussed earlier s. Some have contended that punishment with a consequentialist rationale does not treat those punished merely as means as long as it is constrained by the retributivist prohibitions on punishment of the innocent and disproportionate punishment of the guilty see Walker 1980: 80—85; Hoskins 2011a. Still, a critic may argue that if we are to treat another with the respect due to her as a rational and responsible agent, we must seek to modify her conduct only by offering her good and relevant reasons to modify it for herself. Punishment aimed at deterrence, incapacitation, or offender reform, however, does not satisfy that demand. A reformative system treats those subjected to it not as rational, self-determining agents, but as objects to be re-formed by whatever efficient and humane techniques we can find. An incapacitative system does not leave those subjected to it free, as responsible agents should be left free, to determine their own future conduct, but seeks to preempt their future choices by incapacitating them. One strategy for dealing with them is to posit a two-step justification of punishment. The first step, which typically appeals to nonconsequentialist values, shows how the commission of a crime renders the offender eligible for, or liable to, the kinds of coercive treatment that punishment involves: such treatment, which is normally inconsistent with the respect due to us as rational agents or as citizens, and inconsistent with the Kantian means principle, is rendered permissible by the commission of the offence. The second step is then to offer positive consequentialist reasons for imposing punishment on those who are eligible for it or liable to it: we should punish if and because this can be expected to produce sufficient consequential benefits to outweigh its undoubted costs. Further nonconsequentialist constraints might also be placed on the severity and modes of punishment that can be permitted: constraints either flowing from an account of just what offenders render themselves liable to, or from other values external to the system of punishment.
We must ask, however, whether we should be so quick to exclude fellow citizens from the rights and status of citizenship, or whether we should not look for an account of punishment if it is to be justified at all on which punishment can still be claimed to treat those punished as full citizens. The common practice of denying imprisoned offenders the right to vote while they are in prison, and perhaps even after they leave prison, is symbolically significant in this context: those who would argue that punishment should be consistent with recognised citizenship should also oppose such practices; see Lippke 2001b; Journal of Applied Philosophy 2005; see also generally s. The consent view holds that when a person voluntarily commits a crime while knowing the consequences of doing so, she thereby consents to these consequences. This is not to say that she explicitly consents to being punished, but rather than by her voluntary action she tacitly consents to be subject to what she knows are the consequences. Notice that, like the forfeiture view, the consent view is agnostic regarding the positive aim of punishment: it purports to tell us only that punishing the person does not wrong her, as she has effectively waived her right against such treatment. The consent view faces formidable objections, however. First, it appears unable to ground prohibitions on excessively harsh sentences: if such sentences are implemented, then anyone who subsequently violates the corresponding laws will have apparently tacitly consented to the punishment Alexander 1986. A second objection is that most offenders do not in fact consent, even tacitly, to their sentences, because they are unaware either that their acts are subject to punishment or of the severity of the punishment to which they may be liable. For someone to have consented to be subject to certain consequences of an act, she must know of these consequences see Boonin 2008: 161—64. A third objection is that, because tacit consent can be overridden by explicit denial of consent, it appears that explicitly nonconsenting offenders could not be justifiably punished on this view ibid.
Others offer contractualist or contractarian justifications of punishment, grounded in an account not of what treatment offenders have in fact tacitly consented to, but rather of what rational agents or reasonable citizens would endorse. The punishment of those who commit crimes is then, it is argued, rendered permissible by the fact that the offender himself would, as a rational agent or reasonable citizen, have consented to a system of law that provided for such punishments see e. For versions of this kind of argument, see Alexander 1980; Quinn 1985; Farrell 1985, 1995; Montague 1995; Ellis 2003 and 2012. For criticism, see Boonin 2008: 192—207. For a particularly intricate development of this line of thought, grounding the justification of punishment in the duties that we incur by committing wrongs, see Tadros 2011; for critical responses, see the special issue of Law and Philosophy, 2013. One might argue that the Hegelian objection to a system of deterrent punishment overstates the tension between the types of reasons, moral or prudential, that such a system may offer. Punishment may communicate both a prudential and a moral message to members of the community. Even before a crime is committed, the threat of punishment communicates societal condemnation of an offense. This moral message may help to dissuade potential offenders, but those who are unpersuaded by this moral message may still be prudentially deterred by the prospect of punishment. Similarly, those who actually do commit crimes may be dissuaded from reoffending by the moral censure conveyed by their punishment, or else by the prudential desire to avoid another round of hard treatment.
Through its criminal statutes, a community declares certain acts to be wrong and makes a moral appeal to community members to comply, whereas trials and convictions can communicate a message of deserved censure to the offender. Thus even if a system of deterrent punishment is itself regarded as communicating solely in prudential terms, it seems that the criminal law more generally can still communicate a moral message to those subject to it see Hoskins 2011a. A somewhat different attempt to accommodate prudential as well as moral reasons in an account of punishment begins with the retributivist notion that punishment is justified as a form of deserved censure, but then contends that we should communicate censure through penal hard treatment because this will give those who are insufficiently impressed by the moral appeal of censure prudential reason to refrain from crime; because, that is, the prospect of such punishment might deter those who are not susceptible to moral persuasion. See Lipkin 1988, Baker 1992. For a sophisticated revision of this idea, which makes deterrence firmly secondary to censure, see von Hirsch 1993, ch. For critical discussion, see Bottoms 1998; Duff 2001, ch. For another subtle version of this kind of account, see Matravers 2000. It might be objected that on this account the law, in speaking to those who are not persuaded by its moral appeal, is still abandoning the attempt at moral communication in favour of the language of threats, and thus ceasing to address its citizens as responsible moral agents: to which it might be replied, first, that the law is addressing us, appropriately, as fallible moral agents who know that we need the additional spur of prudential deterrence to persuade us to act as we should; and second, that we cannot clearly separate the merely deterrent from the morally communicative dimensions of punishment — that the dissuasive efficacy of legitimate punishment still depends crucially on the moral meaning that the hard treatment is understood to convey. One more mixed view worth noting holds that punishment is justified as a means of teaching a moral lesson to those who commit crimes, and perhaps to community members more generally the seminal articulations of this view are H. Morris 1981 and Hampton 1984; for a more recent account, see Demetriou 2012; for criticism, see Deigh 1984, Shafer-Landau 1991.
But education theorists also take seriously the Hegelian worry discussed earlier; they view punishment not as a means of conditioning people to behave in certain ways, but rather as a means of teaching them that what they have done should not be done because it is morally wrong. Thus although the education view sets offender reform as an end, it also implies certain nonconsequentialist constraints on how we may appropriately pursue this end. Another distinctive feature of the moral education view is that it conceives of punishment as aiming to confer a benefit on the offender: the benefit of moral education. Critics have objected to the moral education view on various grounds, however. Some are sceptical about whether punishment is the most effective means of moral education. Others deny that most offenders need moral education; many offenders realise what they are doing is wrong but are weak-willed, impulsive, etc. Each of the theories discussed in this section incorporates, in various ways, consequentialist and nonconsequentialist elements. Whether any of these is more plausible than pure consequentialist or pure retributivist alternatives is, not surprisingly, a matter of ongoing philosophical debate. One possibility, of course, is that none of the theories on offer is successful because punishment is, ultimately, unjustifiable. The next section considers penal abolitionism.
Abolition and Alternatives Abolitionist theorising about punishment takes many different forms, united only by the insistence that we should seek to abolish, rather than merely to reform, our practices of punishment. Classic abolitionist texts include Christie 1977, 1981; Hulsman 1986, 1991; de Haan 1990; Bianchi 1994. An initial question is precisely what practices should be abolished. Some abolitionists focus on particular modes of punishment, such as capital punishment see, e. Davis 2003. Insofar as such critiques are grounded in concerns about racial disparities, mass incarceration, police abuses, and other features of the U. At the same time, insofar as the critiques are based on particular features of the U. By contrast, other abolitionist accounts focus not on some particular mode s of punishment, or on a particular mode of punishment as administered in this or that legal system, but rather on criminal punishment in any form see, e. The more powerful abolitionist challenge is that punishment cannot be justified even in principle. After all, when the state imposes punishment, it treats some people in ways that would typically outside the context of punishment be impermissible.
It subjects them to intentionally burdensome treatment and to the condemnation of the community. Abolitionists find that the various attempted justifications of this intentionally burdensome condemnatory treatment fail, and thus that the practice is morally wrong — not merely in practice but in principle. For such accounts, a central question is how the state should respond to the types of conduct for which one currently would be subject to punishment. In this section we attend to three notable types of abolitionist theory and the alternatives to punishment that they endorse. But one might regard this as a false dichotomy see Allais 2011; Duff 2011a. A restorative process that is to be appropriate to crime must therefore be one that seeks an adequate recognition, by the offender and by others, of the wrong done—a recognition that must for the offender, if genuine, be repentant; and that seeks an appropriate apologetic reparation for that wrong from the offender. But those are also the aims of punishment as a species of secular penance, as sketched above. A system of criminal punishment, however improved it might be, is of course not well designed to bring about the kind of personal reconciliations and transformations that advocates of restorative justice sometimes seek; but it could be apt to secure the kind of formal, ritualised reconciliation that is the most that a liberal state should try to secure between its citizens. If we focus only on imprisonment, which is still often the preferred mode of punishment in many penal systems, this suggestion will appear laughable; but if we think instead of punishments such as Community Service Orders now part of what is called Community Payback or probation, it might seem more plausible. This argument does not, of course, support that account of punishment against its critics.
A similar issue is raised by the second kind of abolitionist theory that we should note here: the argument that we should replace punishment by a system of enforced restitution see e. For we need to ask what restitution can amount to, what it should involve, if it is to constitute restitution not merely for any harm that might have been caused, but for the wrong that was done; and it is tempting to answer that restitution for a wrong must involve the kind of apologetic moral reparation, expressing a remorseful recognition of the wrong, that communicative punishment on the view sketched above aims to become. More generally, advocates of restorative justice and of restitution are right to highlight the question of what offenders owe to those whom they have wronged — and to their fellow citizens see also Tadros 2011 for a focus on the duties that offenders incur. Some penal theorists, however, especially those who connect punishment to apology, will reply that what offenders owe precisely includes accepting, undertaking, or undergoing punishment. A third alternative approach that has gained some prominence in recent years is grounded in belief in free will scepticism, the view that human behaviour is a result not of free will but of determinism, luck, or chance, and thus that the notions of moral responsibility and desert on which many accounts of punishment especially retributivist theories depend are misguided see s. As an alternative to holding offenders responsible, or giving them their just deserts, some free will sceptics see Pereboom 2013; Caruso 2021 instead endorse incapacitating dangerous offenders on a model similar to that of public health quarantines. Just as it can arguably be justified to quarantine someone carrying a transmissible disease even if that person is not morally responsible for the threat they pose, proponents of the quarantine model contend that it can be justified to incapacitate dangerous offenders even if they are not morally responsible for what they have done or for the danger they present. One question is whether the quarantine model is best understood as an alternative to punishment or as an alternative form of punishment. Beyond questions of labelling, however, such views also face various lines of critique. In particular, because they discard the notions of moral responsibility and desert, they face objections, similar to those faced by pure consequentialist accounts see s.
International Criminal Law and Punishment Theoretical discussions of criminal punishment and its justification typically focus on criminal punishment in the context of domestic criminal law. But a theory of punishment must also have something to say about its rationale and justification in the context of international criminal law: about how we should understand, and whether and how we can justify, the punishments imposed by such tribunals as the International Criminal Court. For we cannot assume that a normative theory of domestic criminal punishment can simply be read across into the context of international criminal law see Drumbl 2007. Rather, the imposition of punishment in the international context raises distinctive conceptual and normative issues. Such international intervention is only justified, however, in cases of serious harm to the international community, or to humanity as a whole. Crimes harm humanity as a whole, on this account, when they are group-based either in the sense that they are based on group characteristics of the victims or are perpetrated by a state or another group agent. Such as account has been subject to challenge focused on its harm-based account of crime Renzo 2012 and its claim that group-based crimes harm humanity as a whole A. Altman 2006. We might think, by contrast, that the heinousness of a crime or the existence of fair legal procedures is not enough. We also need some relational account of why the international legal community — rather than this or that domestic legal entity — has standing to call perpetrators of genocide or crimes against humanity to account: that is, why the offenders are answerable to the international community see Duff 2010.
For claims of standing to be legitimate, they must be grounded in some shared normative community that includes the perpetrators themselves as well as those on behalf of whom the international legal community calls the perpetrators to account. For other discussions of jurisdiction to prosecute and punish international crimes, see W. Lee 2010; Wellman 2011; Giudice and Schaeffer 2012; Davidovic 2015. Another important question is how international institutions should assign responsibility for crimes such as genocide, which are perpetrated by groups rather than by individuals acting alone. Such questions arise in the domestic context as well, with respect to corporations, but the magnitude of crimes such as genocide makes the questions especially poignant at the international level. Several scholars in recent years have suggested, however, that rather than focusing only on prosecuting and punishing members of the groups responsible for mass atrocities, it may sometimes be preferable to prosecute and punish the entire group qua group. A worry for such proposals is that, because punishment characteristically involves the imposition of burdens, punishment of an entire group risks inflicting punitive burdens on innocent members of the group: those who were nonparticipants in the crime, or perhaps even worked against it or were among its victims.
Well, even the different levels of murder we would have, what is a first degree murder... Second degree. If you really had a plan to do it.
Yeah, premeditated. That would be the highest. The passion and a be lesser degree. Wife kills the husband. Under the influence, the passion. Because there is certain... Oh, affect that sounds like, yeah, alcohol. So in this, well, in Russian, for example, we have this sort of, okay, help me out with the term. So there is mitigating, you know, some sort of conditions which make the punishment harder. What is the opposite to that something that makes the punishment less severe?
Well, mitigating circumstances. Oh, mitigating is something that helps you to get... Without an action you mean. Those are mitigating circumstances. Under influence, kind of things. But under influence of what? So in this case, you were not under influence of alcohol or drugs. Nothing like that. You were just in shock. Oh, okay.
So maybe like some kind of mental. Mental breakdown. So when we give our definitions. Double check them on Google because you have English and then you have legal English, which is kind of different things. And also laws change as well. And definitions as well can change sometimes. So you said you have constitution. So Turkey has a constitution that is written and... And if you are against that, you will be punished according to that. For example, like burning the flag.
It is a crime in the US as well. A lot of things are crime in Russia. I want to comment on this. Because this was like, that was a really pushed during the Vietnam War was can we burn the flag can we wear the flag as clothing. Because it used to be against the law to if a flag, an American flag purposely or accidentally was dropped to the ground, if it touched the ground, you have to burn it out of a ceremony to show respect to the flag or you were not allowed, it was against the law to wear the American flag as clothing. It was against that law. And underwear. Same in Turkey. Underwear short, anything. So funny.
I have pajamas with the American flag. But in the end Vietnam War came with all of the riots and rebellion and anti-war. And this kind of thing changed it. So you have, so Turkey has a written constitution. Of course, Russia has a written and of course, America, the UK does not have a written constitution. Oh, right. Which is really interesting. This is old historical structure. Maybe it does exist. I believe there is a Bill of Rights, or at least there is discussion about introducing it in the UK.
So our founding fathers knew this. So they put very general things. And so, of course, as time changes and people change, conditions change. You have to interpret it or misinterpret it. And do they still wear the wigs? They do, they do. I love these wigs. So actually like in the movies and everithing? I mean, it is so crazy to watch the British in court fighting each other or not in court, in the parliament, I should say. In the parliament.
Not in America. The House of Parliament is a very rowdy parliament.
Что является наиболее тяжелым наказанием? This would be an administrative punishment.
Это и было бы для них административным наказанием. That is cruel and unusual punishment. Это очень жестокое и необычное наказание. Ты напрашиваешься на наказание.
Это жестокое и необычное наказание. Just punishment is the best deterrent. Справедливое наказание — это наилучший способ сдерживания. This is cruel and unusual punishment.
Crucifixion was a Roman method of punishment.
Примеры употребления "punishment" в английском с переводом "наказание"
Дидактический материал для оформления доски на английском языке. Many translated example sentences containing "наказание" – English-Russian dictionary and search engine for English translations. Суд может наложить штраф. Смело включайте детективы в оригинале и наслаждайтесь! ❣ Привет, ребят! 👉 В прошлый раз мы разобрали различные преступления на английском, а теперь. Русско-английский словарь. Перевод «Наказание». на английский язык: «punishment». Как "наказание" в английский: punishment, penalty, discipline. Контекстный перевод: Во многих странах строжайшая мера наказания — смертная казнь. Перевод наказание по-английски. Как перевести на английский наказание?