Many translated example sentences containing "наказание" – English-Russian dictionary and search engine for English translations.
Recent Posts
- Виды перевода
- Виды преступлений и наказаний — английские слова на тему «Crime and punishment»
- Crime and Punishment - сочинение на английском языке
- Текст на английском с переводом для универа
Crime and Punishment - сочинение на английском языке
Перевод слова НАКАЗАНИЕ на английский язык, смотреть в русско-английском словаре. контексты с "punishment" в английском с переводом "наказание" на русский от PROMT, устойчивые словосочетания и идиомы, значения слов в разных контекстах. Как "наказание" в английский: punishment, penalty, discipline. Контекстный перевод: Во многих странах строжайшая мера наказания — смертная казнь. В статье рассмотрен перевод 'наказание' на английский язык с примером использования и полезными ссылками на другую лексику.
Штрафы английских игроков за скандальные высказывания в социальных сетях достигли 350 тысяч фунтов
Kamaldzhafarov 12 окт. Vikavasyuk86 10 авг. Ключи моей сестры , учитель моей дочери, ноутбук джейн, картина пикассо, ключи марка, сестра моего брата, друг невиты, тишина дяди. На этой странице находится вопрос Срочно нужно 5 наказаний на английском языке?. Здесь же — ответы на него, и похожие вопросы в категории Английский язык, которые можно найти с помощью простой в использовании поисковой системы. Уровень сложности вопроса соответствует уровню подготовки учащихся 10 - 11 классов. В комментариях, оставленных ниже, ознакомьтесь с вариантами ответов посетителей страницы. С ними можно обсудить тему вопроса в режиме on-line.
Если ни один из предложенных ответов не устраивает, сформулируйте новый вопрос в поисковой строке, расположенной вверху, и нажмите кнопку. Последние ответы AlexTrask 29 апр. Food festival is held every year in the month of February. During the event, the participants will have to show their..
Фрэнсис Бэкон Без чтения нет настоящего образования, нет и не может быть ни вкуса, ни слова, ни многосторонней шири понимания; Гёте и Шекспир равняются целому университету. Чтением человек переживает века.
Александр Герцен.
I have to receive the punishment, too.
Они, правда, получат наказание? They will really receive punishment? Пол теперь сможет получить наказание, на которое он вправе рассчитывать.
Эй, это задница просто получит наказание, для этого она и нужна. Мы проследим, чтобы он получил наказание.
So welcome, Анастасия. Thank you for being part of the conversation and do not be afraid to share your thoughts with us. I love this subject. Very serious one.
I love it how Benjamin and a lot of other people have very different definitions of fun. Great weather, you know, interesting and so on. Go on, Benjamin. What do you think? Criminality, crime. So how do you define crime?
Well, crime has to be against the law. We have to set laws. So, yeah, a crime is an action that breaks a certain law. But then again, in this case, we have two terms because we have a crime and we have misdemeanor. Is it also a crime? In America, yeah, in America you have felonies and misdemeanors.
So these are degrees of seriousness of crimes. It is still a crime. Varya, what is considered a misdemeanor crime in America? Well, there are many types of felony crimes that could be murder, it could be... Murder is a felony? Yeah, it is a felony crime, yeah.
I thought a felony somewhere, you know, in the mid. Like, not. Not so serious. Well, in Russian you have administrative crimes. I guess you can translate heavy crimes. So misdemeanor crimes are things like jaywalking.
So I was going to ask. What about..? Petty theft. Petty theft or... Some misdemeanors can be stronger than others. So it just depends on state by state with that.
Of course, in America, you have the federal level and the state level, and it depends what crime you commit. Whereas if you commit a crime on the territory of a state, yeah. And then the crimes, the criminals would be treated differently depending on the state. Or even we have privatized prisons where someone actually owns prison. Same in England. Which people can make money off from criminals.
This company called G4S. But then there are things that are not on the law books yet. Or not standardized. Domestic violence, animal abuse. I mean, a lot of women did not speak out against their husbands because there was no law. So there are kind of.
But but then through activism, we could change laws. And the job of the police, of course, is to enforce the law. Enforce means to make sure that the laws are followed and to apply punishments if required. Of course. But I mean, to detain, excuse me, to detain someone, not to punish people. Yeah, to detain people if required.
So, Ugur, what in Turkey? Do you have, like a similar system to America whereby you have misdemeanor crimes and felony crimes? Plus we have constitutional crimes. And you need to be just, you need to be in a state that you have to take the constitutional law and court house. Kind of felony. So, same thing.
Like a similar thing. 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.
Жизель Бюндхен разрыдалась из-за полицейского, выписавшего ей штраф на дороге
Four major tech companies were accused of agreeing not to poach each other's employees in order to drive down wages. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like buily, cheat, fight and more. offers free real time quotes, portfolio, streaming charts, financial news, live stock market data and more. Аннотация. Цель данной статьи – выявить трудности перевода реалий профессий и должностей в романе Ф.М. Достоевского «Преступление и наказание» на английский язык. Англичанину, осквернившему памятник советскому футболисту Федору Черенкову, грозит административное наказание, сообщает ТАСС.
Содержание
- В Британии анонсировали ужесточение наказания за нарушение закона о шпионаже — РТ на русском
- Help Menu Mobile
- Punishment - Wikipedia
- Тема "Преступления в нашем обществе" (Crime in our society)
Punishment – наказание
| Греция вводит уголовное наказание за распространение ложной информации о коронавирусе | Новости, спорт и мнения из глобального издания The Guardian | News. |
| Стала известна возможная мера наказания английскому вандалу | 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. |
| Crime and Punishment - сочинение на английском языке | The latest UK and world news, business, sport and comment from The Times and The Sunday Time. |
| НАКАЗАНИЕ (nakazanie) на Английском - Английский перевод | Суд может наложить штраф. Смело включайте детективы в оригинале и наслаждайтесь! ❣ Привет, ребят! 👉 В прошлый раз мы разобрали различные преступления на английском, а теперь. |
| Punishment – наказание | Английский язык | Фотострана | Пост №1903008685 | ТВ, кино, музыка на английском TV-Кино-Музыка. |
Английские слова/лексика на тему «Виды преступлений и наказаний» — Crime and punishment
Kick is the most rewarding gaming and livestreaming platform. Sign-up for our beta and join the fastest growing streaming community. The latest UK and world news, business, sport and comment from The Times and The Sunday Time. offers free real time quotes, portfolio, streaming charts, financial news, live stock market data and more. Аннотация. Цель данной статьи – выявить трудности перевода реалий профессий и должностей в романе Ф.М. Достоевского «Преступление и наказание» на английский язык. Four major tech companies were accused of agreeing not to poach each other's employees in order to drive down wages.
Преступление и наказание. Лексика на английском.
Во время встречи была выяснена личность вандала, после чего его вывели с трибун и передали правоохранительным органам. Ru» ведет текстовую онлайн-трансляцию главных событий дня мирового первенства. Подписывайтесь на «Газету.
Помогите пожалуйста? Vladimir1110584 28 апр.
His father goes to Spain every year. Her father works in a firm. They often go to this restaurant. He often goes by car.
My sister lives in this street. Take 4. Likes 5. Snows 6.
Cooks 8... Очень срочно?
Читайте лучшие произведения русской и мировой литературы полностью онлайн бесплатно и без регистрации, без сокращений. Бесплатное чтение книг. Книги — корабли мысли, странствующие по волнам времени и бережно несущие свой драгоценный груз от поколения к поколению. Фрэнсис Бэкон Без чтения нет настоящего образования, нет и не может быть ни вкуса, ни слова, ни многосторонней шири понимания; Гёте и Шекспир равняются целому университету.
A striking feature of penal theorising during the last three decades of the twentieth century was a revival of positive retributivism — of the idea that the positive justification of punishment is to be found in its intrinsic character as a deserved response to crime see H.
Morris 1968; N. Morris 1974; Murphy 1973; von Hirsch 1976; two useful collections of contemporary papers on retributivism are White 2011 and Tonry 2012. Positive retributivism comes in very different forms Cottingham 1979. All can be understood, however, as attempting to answer the two central questions faced by any retributivist theory of punishment. Davis 1972 — and what do they deserve to suffer see Ardal 1984; Honderich 2005, ch. Second, even if they deserve to suffer, or to be burdened in some distinctive way, why should it be for the state to inflict that suffering or that burden on them through a system of criminal punishment Murphy 1985; Husak 1992 and 2015; Shafer-Landau 1996; Wellman 2009? One retributivist answer to these questions is that crime involves taking an unfair advantage over the law-abiding, and that punishment removes that unfair advantage.
The criminal law benefits all citizens by protecting them from certain kinds of harm: but this benefit depends upon citizens accepting the burden of self-restraint involved in obeying the law. The criminal takes the benefit of the self-restraint of others but refuses to accept that burden herself: she has gained an unfair advantage, which punishment removes by imposing some additional burden on her see H. Morris 1968; Murphy 1973; Sadurski 1985; Sher 1987, ch. This kind of account does indeed answer the two questions noted above. However, such accounts have internal difficulties: for instance, how are we to determine how great was the unfair advantage gained by a crime; how far are such measurements of unfair advantage likely to correlate with our judgements of the seriousness of crimes? Davis 1992, 1996; for criticism, see Scheid 1990, 1995; von Hirsch 1990. Such accounts try to answer the first of the two questions noted above: crime deserves punishment in the sense that it makes appropriate certain emotions resentment, guilt which are satisfied by or expressed in punishment.
Criminal wrongdoing should, we can agree, provoke certain kinds of emotion, such as self-directed guilt and other-directed indignation; and such emotions might typically involve a desire to make those at whom they are directed suffer. At the least we need to know more than we are told by these accounts about just what wrongdoers deserve to suffer, and why the infliction of suffering should be an appropriate way to express such proper emotions. For critical discussions of Murphy, see Murphy and Hampton 1988, ch. On Moore, see Dolinko 1991: 555—9; Knowles 1993; Murphy 1999. See also Murphy 2003, 2012. More recently, critics of emotion-based retributivist accounts have contended that the emotions on which retributive and other deontological intuitions are based have evolved as mechanisms to stabilise cooperation; given that we have retributive emotions only because of their evolutionary fitness, it would be merely a coincidence if intuitions based on these emotions happened to track moral truths about, e. A problem with such accounts is that they appear to prove too much: consequentialist accounts also rely on certain evaluation intuitions about what has value, or about the proper way to respond to that which we value ; insofar as such intuitions are naturally selected, then it would be no less coincidental if they tracked moral truths than if retributive intuitions did so.
Thus the consequentialist accounts that derive from these intuitions would be similarly undermined by this evolutionary argument see Kahane 2011; Mason 2011; but see Wiegman 2017. A third version of retributivism holds that when people commit a crime, they thereby incur a moral debt to their victims, and punishment is deserved as a way to pay this debt McDermott 2001. This moral debt differs from the material debt that an offender may incur, and thus payment of the material debt returning stolen money or property, etc. Punishment as Communication Perhaps the most influential version of retributivism in recent decades seeks the meaning and justification of punishment as a deserved response to crime in its expressive or communicative character. On the expressive dimension of punishment, see generally Feinberg 1970; Primoratz 1989; for critical discussion, see Hart 1963: 60—69; Skillen 1980; M. Davis 1996: 169—81; A. Lee 2019.
Consequentialists can of course portray punishment as useful partly in virtue of its expressive character see Ewing 1927; Lacey 1988; Braithwaite and Pettit 1990 ; but a portrayal of punishment as a mode of deserved moral communication has been central to many recent versions of retributivism. The central meaning and purpose of punishment, on such accounts, is to convey the censure or condemnation that offenders deserve for their crimes. On other such accounts, the primary intended audience of the condemnatory message is the offender himself, although the broader society may be a secondary audience see Duff 2001: secs. Once we recognise that punishment can serve this communicative purpose, we can see how such accounts begin to answer the two questions that retributivists face. 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.
Punishment - произношение, транскрипция, перевод
Please provide information regarding investigations carried out in the period under review by the special human rights monitoring division of the Organizations and Inspectorate Branch of the Federal Penal Correction Service of the Russian Federation in the remand and pre-trial detention facilities, including main findings, data on acts of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment recorded, measures taken against perpetrators, compensation awarded to victims. Yugoslavia , Preliminary Objections Yugoslavia v. His cousin, Colavaere, had received a similar punishment from Rand, though that had not affected her entire House. Literature Такие санкции в случае юридических лиц составляют от штрафа до закрытия учреждения, в случае физических лиц- от штрафа до тюремного заключения, а в случае государственных должностных лиц помимо указанных наказаний предусматривается отрешение от должности Civil servants, in addition to being subject to the penalties already indicated, will be dismissed from their jobs MultiUn Цель будущей конвенции о преступлениях против человечности — обеспечить эффективное межгосударственное сотрудничество в предотвращении преступлений против человечности и наказании лиц, виновных в их совершении, в национальных судах. The aim of a future convention on crimes against humanity should be to ensure effective intergovernmental cooperation in preventing crimes against humanity and punishing their perpetrators in national courts. UN-2 Пределы наказания варьируются в зависимости от того, применяются ли они согласно какому-либо договору об экстрадиции или согласно Закону о международном сотрудничестве в сфере уголовного правосудия средняя величина срока между максимальной и минимальной мерой наказания; срок не менее одного года и срок от шести месяцев для исполнения приговора.
The penalty thresholds vary depending on whether an extradition treaty or the Act on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters applies half of the sum of the minimum and maximum penalties must equal at least one year, or six months if the extradition is for the purpose of serving a sentence.
Now, the woman next door turns up dead from a blow to the head. What could possibly make them think of you? Скопировать Он не может быть превыше закона только потому, что он полицейский. Он не должен избежать наказания только благодаря неожиданному результату. Он избил невинного человека, сломал скулу, сломал руку, отправил его в больницу. He beat up an innocent man...
Скопировать Ты знаешь, мы с ним не разговариваем. Это часть его наказания. Как ты можешь часами сидеть и слушать это? How can you just sit here hour after hour and listen to that? Скопировать — Школьный лагерь. Тони, у них там разрешены телесные наказания. Школьный психолог Вито рассказывыал мне про эти лагеря. Они расположены в штатах Юта и Айдахо, потому что там закон разрешает бить детей.
The IRS can also remove abate penalties because of certain statutory exceptions and administrative waivers.
Министр юстиции и генеральный прокурор Польши Збигнев Зебро в марте заявил, что польские власти намерены усилить ответственность за шпионаж.
Он пояснил, что меры в Уголовном кодексе Польши несовершенны, так как в среднем наказание за шпионаж в Польше составляет четыре года. Ошибка в тексте?
Error — JavaScript not Loaded
Open access academic research from top universities on the subject of Criminal Law. Kick is the most rewarding gaming and livestreaming platform. Sign-up for our beta and join the fastest growing streaming community. Русско-английский словарь. Перевод «Наказание». на английский язык: «punishment».
Виды перевода
- PUNISHMENT
- Russian Politics & Diplomacy
- Срочно нужно 5 наказаний на английском языке?
- Linguee | Russian-English dictionary
Punishment - произношение, транскрипция, перевод
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.
You generally have 30 days from the date of the rejection letter to file your request for an appeal. Refer to your rejection letter for the specific deadline.
Possible reasons for punishment[ edit ] See also: Criminal justice There are many possible reasons that might be given to justify or explain why someone ought to be punished; here follows a broad outline of typical, possibly conflicting, justifications. Deterrence[ edit ] Two reasons given to justify punishment [18] is that it is a measure to prevent people from committing an offence - deterring previous offenders from re-offending, and preventing those who may be contemplating an offence they have not committed from actually committing it. This punishment is intended to be sufficient that people would choose not to commit the crime rather than experience the punishment. The aim is to deter everyone in the community from committing offences.
Some criminologists state that the number of people convicted for crime does not decrease as a result of more severe punishment and conclude that deterrence is ineffective. These criminologists therefore argue that lack of deterring effect of increasing the sentences for already severely punished crimes say nothing about the significance of the existence of punishment as a deterring factor. These criminologists argue that the use of statistics to gauge the efficiency of crime fighting methods are a danger of creating a reward hack that makes the least efficient criminal justice systems appear to be best at fighting crime, and that the appearance of deterrence being ineffective may be an example of this. Imprisonment separates offenders from the community, for example, Australia was a dumping ground for early British criminals. This was their way of removing or reducing the offenders ability to carry out certain crimes. The death penalty does this in a permanent and irrevocable way. In some societies, people who stole have been punished by having their hands amputated.
Considerations of the meaning of different modes of punishment should be central to these questions see e. Second, there are questions about the relation between theory and practice — between the ideal, as portrayed by a normative theory of punishment, and the actualities of existing penal practice. Suppose we have come to believe, as a matter of normative theory, that a system of legal punishment could in principle be justified — that the abolitionist challenge can be met. It is, to put it mildly, unlikely that our normative theory of justified punishment will justify our existing penal institutions and practices: it is far more likely that such a theory will show our existing practices to be radically imperfect — that legal punishment as it is now imposed is far from meaning or achieving what it should mean or achieve if it is to be adequately justified see Heffernan and Kleinig 2000. If our normative theorising is to be anything more than an empty intellectual exercise, if it is to engage with actual practice, we then face the question of what we can or should do about our current practices. The obvious answer is that we should strive so to reform them that they can be in practice justified, and that answer is certainly available to consequentialists, on the plausible assumption that maintaining our present practices, while also seeking their reform, is likely to do more good or less harm than abandoning them. But for retributivists who insist that punishment is justified only if it is just, and for communicative theorists who insist that punishment is just and justified only if it communicates an appropriate censure to those who deserve it, the matter is harder: for to maintain our present practices, even while seeking their radical reform, will be to maintain practices that perpetrate serious injustice see Murphy 1973; Duff 2001, ch. Finally, the relation between the ideal and the actual is especially problematic in the context of punishment partly because it involves the preconditions of just punishment. That is to say, what makes an actual system of punishment unjust ified might be not its own operations as such what punishment is or achieves within that system , but the absence of certain political, legal and moral conditions on which the whole system depends for its legitimacy see Duff 2001, ch. Recent scholarship on punishment has increasingly acknowledged that the justification of punishment depends on the justification of the criminal law more generally, and indeed the legitimacy of the state itself see s. For example, if the state passes laws criminalising conduct that is not justifiably prohibited, then this calls into question the justification of the punishment it imposes for violations of these laws. Similarly, if the procedures by which criminal justice officials apprehend, charge, and prosecute individuals are unjustified, then the subsequent inflictions of punishment will be unjustified as well see Ristroph 2015 and 2016; on specific aspects of criminal procedure, see, e. Bibliography Primoratz 1999, Honderich 2005, Ellis 2012, and Brooks 2013 are useful introductory books. Duff and Garland 1994; Ashworth, von Hirsch; and Roberts 2009; and Tonry 2011 are useful collections of readings. Adelsberg, L. Guenther, and S. Adler, J. Alexander, L. Allais, L. Altman, A. Altman, M. Anderson, J. Ardal, P. Ashworth, A. Roberts eds. Duff and S. Zedner, and P. Tomlin eds. Bagaric, M. Baker, B. Cragg ed. Barnett, R. Becker, L. Bennett, C. Flanders and Z. Hoskins eds. Bentham, J. Berman, M. Green eds. Bianchi, H. Bickenbach, J. Boonin, D. Bottoms, A. Ashworth and M. Wasik eds. Braithwaite, J. Tonry, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 241—367. Brettschneider, C. Brooks, T. Brown, J. Brownlee, K. Brudner, A. Burgh, R. Caruso, G. Chau, P. Chiao, V. Christie, N. British Journal of Criminology, 17: 1—15. Ciocchetti, C. Cogley, Z. Timpe and C. Boyd eds. Cottingham, J. Dagger, R. Laborde and J. Maynor eds. Daly, K. Davidovic, J. Davis, A. New York: Seven Stories Press. Davis, L. Davis, M. Deigh, J. Demetriou, D. Dempsey, M. Dimock, S. Dolinko, D. Dolovich, S. Drumbl, M. Duff, R. Besson and J. Tasioulas eds. Green and B. Leiter eds. Garland eds. Farmer, S. Marshall, and V. Ellis, A. Erskine, T. Isaacs and R. Vernon eds. Ewing, A. Falls, M. Farrell, D. Feinberg, J. Finkelstein, C. Flanders, C. Frase, R. Garland, D. Garvey, S. Giudice, M. Tanguay-Renaud and J. Stribopoulos eds. Glasgow, J. Golash, D. Goldman, A. Greene, J. Sinnott-Armstrong ed. Hampton, J. Hanna, N. Hare, R. Hart, H. Heffernan, W. Kleinig eds. Hegel, G. Knox, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1942. Holroyd, J. Honderich, T. Horder, J. Hoskins, Z. Lewis and G. Bock eds. Waller, E. Shaw, and F.