Как на английском сленге будет "смертник" (в смысле приговоренный к смертной казни)?
Sport News
Yeah, well, it is. There are many differences. All right. And also, guys, I need to mention, you can you can listen to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Yandex podcasts, VK, and of course, you can get the video version on YouTube. And you also should think about joining our private telegram chat where you can get access to the aftershow portion of this podcast and you can see us in video formats, and you can also get access to vocabulary lists, which will definitely help you with your English learning journey. And of course you can communicate directly with us in the telegram chat and practice your English writing skills and speak to one another. So and also we want to welcome Анастасия, who signed up for the private telegram chat. 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.
В поправках к существующей в УК Греции статье уточняется, что уголовное преследование предусмотрено за публикацию ложных новостей «способных вызвать беспокойство или страх у граждан или поколебать доверие общества к национальной экономике, обороноспособности страны или общественному здравоохранению». Согласно новой формулировке, распространение фейков наказывается лишением свободы на срок не менее трех месяцев и крупным штрафом. Греческие журналисты назвали данное решение Парламента попыткой ограничить свободу слова и контролировать личное мнение, так как обновленная статья УК касается любой информации, являющейся предметом общественного обсуждения.
In Russia, capital punishment still exists, but the parliament has started discussions about abolishing it. At one time capital punishment was used for many crimes offences. The Bible, for example, prescribed death for at least 30 crimes. During the Middle Ages capital punishment was especially popular. Burning alive, hanging, beheading, stoning to death, drawing and quartering were quite common in those dark years. People disagree about whether capital punishment is moral or effective in preventing crime. The fear of death is more effective than the fear of prison. If we put them in prison, they can escape and commit another crime. It is cruel and inhumane. People have been sentenced to death and later it was discovered that they were completely innocent. The poor and defenceless are more likely to be executed than the rich and powerful.
Стала известна возможная мера наказания английскому вандалу close РИА Новости Англичанину, осквернившему памятник советскому футболисту Федору Черенкову , грозит административное наказание, сообщает ТАСС. Согласно статье, вандалу грозит административный штраф от трех до десяти тысяч рублей или обязательные работы на срок 160 часов. Также ему могут запретить посещение спортивных соревнований на срок от 6 месяцев до 3 лет.
Греция вводит уголовное наказание за распространение ложной информации о коронавирусе
43-летняя супермодель проявила эмоции на публике в Майами. Жизель Бюндхен не смогла сдержать слез, получив штраф от полицейского. Учи английский с Memrise. секретная приправа от Memrise. 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. Перевод контекст "наказание" c русский на английский от Reverso Context: наказание в виде лишения свободы, максимальное наказание, преступление и наказание, наказание в виде, суровое наказание. Примеры использования наказание в предложениях и их переводы. Любому лицу, финансирующему террористические акты, назначается наказание в виде лишения свободы сроком до 10 лет.
Как будет "наказание" по-английски? Перевод слова "наказание"
В поправках к существующей в УК Греции статье уточняется, что уголовное преследование предусмотрено за публикацию ложных новостей «способных вызвать беспокойство или страх у граждан или поколебать доверие общества к национальной экономике, обороноспособности страны или общественному здравоохранению». Согласно новой формулировке, распространение фейков наказывается лишением свободы на срок не менее трех месяцев и крупным штрафом. Греческие журналисты назвали данное решение Парламента попыткой ограничить свободу слова и контролировать личное мнение, так как обновленная статья УК касается любой информации, являющейся предметом общественного обсуждения.
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. 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.
Онлайн новости — и того хуже. Новости можно назвать международной системой разрушения внимания. News works like a drug. As stories develop, we want to know how they continue. With hundreds of arbitrary storylines in our heads, this craving is increasingly compelling and hard to ignore. Scientists used to think that the dense connections formed among the 100 billion neurons inside our skulls were largely fixed by the time we reached adulthood. Today we know that this is not the case.
Nerve cells routinely break old connections and form new ones. The more news we consume, the more we exercise the neural circuits devoted to skimming and multitasking while ignoring those used for reading deeply and thinking with profound focus. Most news consumers — even if they used to be avid book readers — have lost the ability to absorb lengthy articles or books. After four, five pages they get tired, their concentration vanishes, they become restless. Новости работают как наркотик Узнав о каком-либо происшествии, мы хотим узнать и чем оно закончится. Помня о сотнях сюжетов из новостей, мы все меньше способны контролировать это стремление. Ученые привыкли думать, что плотные связи среди 100 миллиардов нейронов в наших головах уже окончательно сложились к тому моменту, когда мы достигаем зрелого возраста. Сегодня мы знаем, что это не так. Нервные клетки регулярно разрывают старые связи и образуют новые.
Чем больше новостей мы потребляем, тем больше мы тренируем нейронные цепи, отвечающие за поверхностное ознакомление и выполнение множественных задач, игнорируя те, которые отвечают за чтение и сосредоточенное мышление. Большинство потребителей новостей — даже если они раньше были заядлыми читателями книг — потеряли способность читать большие статьи или книги. После четырех-пяти страниц они устают, концентрация исчезает, появляется беспокойство. Это не потому, что они стали старше или у них появилось много дел. Просто физическая структура мозга изменилась. News wastes time. Information is no longer a scarce commodity. But attention is. You are not that irresponsible with your money, reputation or health.
Why give away your mind? Новости убивают время Если вы читаете новости по 15 минут утром, потом просматриваете их 15 минут в середине дня, 15 минут перед сном, еще по 5 минут на работе, теперь сосчитаем, сколько времени вы сфокусированы на новостях, то вы теряете как минимум пол дня еженедельно. Новости — не столь ценный товар по сравнению с нашим вниманием. Мы уделяем внимание деньгам, репутации, здоровью. Почему же не заботимся о собственном сознании. News makes us passive. News stories are overwhelmingly about things you cannot influence. It grinds us down until we adopt a worldview that is pessimistic, desensitised, sarcastic and fatalistic. The scientific term is «learned helplessness».
Новости делают нас пассивными Подавляющее большинство новостей рассказывают о вещах, на которые вы не можете повлиять. Ежедневное повторение того, что мы бессильны делает нас пассивными. Они перемалывают нас, пока мы не смиримся с пессимистичным, бесчувственным, саркастическим и фаталистическим мировоззрением. Есть термин для этого явления — «заученная беспомощность». Я не удивлюсь, если узнаю, что новости являются одной из причин распространяющейся массовой депрессии. News kills creativity.
Поскольку принудительная власть… … Политология. Наказание — лат. Цели Н … Юридический словарь Наказание — мера принуждения, заключающаяся в предусмотренных законом лишении или ограничении прав и свобод, применяемая по приговору суда к лицу, признанному виновным в совершении преступления. Словарь бизнес терминов. Заключается в лишении или ограничении прав и свобод осужденных. Мера воздействия на того, кто совершил проступок, преступление.
Текст на английском с переводом для универа
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. In response to this concern, defenders of the idea of collective punishment have suggested that it need not distribute among the members of the group see Erskine 2011; Pasternak 2011; Tanguagy-Renaud 2013; but see Hoskins 2014b , or that the benefits of such punishment may be valuable enough to override concerns about harm to innocents see Lang 2007: 255. Many coercive measures are imposed even on those who have not been convicted, such as the many kinds of restriction that may be imposed on people suspected of involvement in terrorism, or housing or job restrictions tied merely to arrests rather than convictions. The legal measures are relevant for punishment theorists for a number of reasons, but here we note just two: First, at least some of these restrictive measures may be best regarded as as additional forms of punishment see Lippke 2016: ch.
For such measures, we must ask whether they are or can be made to be consistent with the principles and considerations we believe should govern impositions of punishment. Second, even if at least some measures are not best regarded as additional forms of punishment, we should ask what justifies the state in imposing additional coercive measures on those convicted of crimes outside the context of the punishment itself see Ashworth and Zedner 2011, 2012; Ramsay 2011; Ashworth, Zedner, and Tomlin 2013; Hoskins 2019: chs. For instance, if we regard punishment as the way in which offenders pay their debts to society, we can argue that it is at least presumptively unjustified for the state to impose additional burdensome measures on offenders once this debt has been paid. To say that certain measures are presumptively unjustified is not, of course, to establish that they are all-things-considered prohibited. Various collateral consequences — restrictions on employment or housing, for example — are often defended as public safety measures. We might argue see Hoskins 2019: ch. Public safety restrictions could only be justifiable, however, when there is a sufficiently compelling public safety interest, when the measures will be effective in serving that interest, when the measures will not do more harm than good, and when there are no less burdensome means of achieving the public safety aim. Even for public safety measures that meet these conditions, we should not lose sight of the worry that imposing such restrictions on people with criminal convictions but who have served their terms of punishment denies them the equal treatment to which they, having paid their debt, are entitled on this last worry, see, e. In addition to these formal legal consequences of a conviction, people with criminal records also face a range of informal collateral consequences, such as social stigma, family tensions, discrimination by employers and housing authorities, and financial challenges. These consequences are not imposed by positive law, but they may be permitted by formal legal provisions such as those that grant broad discretion to public housing authorities in the United States making admission decisions or facilitated by them such as when laws making criminal records widely accessible enable employers or landlords to discriminate against those with criminal histories.
There are also widely documented burdensome consequences of a conviction to the family members or loved ones of those who are convicted, and to their communities. These sorts of informal consequences of criminal convictions appear less likely than the formal legal consequences to constitute legal punishment, insofar as they are not intentionally imposed by the state but see Kolber 2012. Still, the informal collateral consequences of a conviction are arguably relevant to theorising about punishment, and we should examine when, if ever, such burdens are relevant to sentencing determinations on sentencing, see s. Further Issues A number of further important questions are relevant to theorising about punishment, which can only be noted here. First, there are questions about sentencing. Who should decide what kinds and what levels of sentence should be attached to different offences or kinds of offence: what should be the respective roles of legislatures, of sentencing councils or commissions, of appellate courts, of trial judges, of juries? What kinds of punishment should be available to sentencers, and how should they decide which mode of punishment is appropriate for the particular offence? 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.
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. In response to this concern, defenders of the idea of collective punishment have suggested that it need not distribute among the members of the group see Erskine 2011; Pasternak 2011; Tanguagy-Renaud 2013; but see Hoskins 2014b , or that the benefits of such punishment may be valuable enough to override concerns about harm to innocents see Lang 2007: 255.
Many coercive measures are imposed even on those who have not been convicted, such as the many kinds of restriction that may be imposed on people suspected of involvement in terrorism, or housing or job restrictions tied merely to arrests rather than convictions. The legal measures are relevant for punishment theorists for a number of reasons, but here we note just two: First, at least some of these restrictive measures may be best regarded as as additional forms of punishment see Lippke 2016: ch. For such measures, we must ask whether they are or can be made to be consistent with the principles and considerations we believe should govern impositions of punishment. Second, even if at least some measures are not best regarded as additional forms of punishment, we should ask what justifies the state in imposing additional coercive measures on those convicted of crimes outside the context of the punishment itself see Ashworth and Zedner 2011, 2012; Ramsay 2011; Ashworth, Zedner, and Tomlin 2013; Hoskins 2019: chs. For instance, if we regard punishment as the way in which offenders pay their debts to society, we can argue that it is at least presumptively unjustified for the state to impose additional burdensome measures on offenders once this debt has been paid. To say that certain measures are presumptively unjustified is not, of course, to establish that they are all-things-considered prohibited. Various collateral consequences — restrictions on employment or housing, for example — are often defended as public safety measures.
We might argue see Hoskins 2019: ch. Public safety restrictions could only be justifiable, however, when there is a sufficiently compelling public safety interest, when the measures will be effective in serving that interest, when the measures will not do more harm than good, and when there are no less burdensome means of achieving the public safety aim. Even for public safety measures that meet these conditions, we should not lose sight of the worry that imposing such restrictions on people with criminal convictions but who have served their terms of punishment denies them the equal treatment to which they, having paid their debt, are entitled on this last worry, see, e. In addition to these formal legal consequences of a conviction, people with criminal records also face a range of informal collateral consequences, such as social stigma, family tensions, discrimination by employers and housing authorities, and financial challenges. These consequences are not imposed by positive law, but they may be permitted by formal legal provisions such as those that grant broad discretion to public housing authorities in the United States making admission decisions or facilitated by them such as when laws making criminal records widely accessible enable employers or landlords to discriminate against those with criminal histories. There are also widely documented burdensome consequences of a conviction to the family members or loved ones of those who are convicted, and to their communities. These sorts of informal consequences of criminal convictions appear less likely than the formal legal consequences to constitute legal punishment, insofar as they are not intentionally imposed by the state but see Kolber 2012.
Still, the informal collateral consequences of a conviction are arguably relevant to theorising about punishment, and we should examine when, if ever, such burdens are relevant to sentencing determinations on sentencing, see s. Further Issues A number of further important questions are relevant to theorising about punishment, which can only be noted here. First, there are questions about sentencing. Who should decide what kinds and what levels of sentence should be attached to different offences or kinds of offence: what should be the respective roles of legislatures, of sentencing councils or commissions, of appellate courts, of trial judges, of juries? What kinds of punishment should be available to sentencers, and how should they decide which mode of punishment is appropriate for the particular offence? 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.
Ученые привыкли думать, что плотные связи среди 100 миллиардов нейронов в наших головах уже окончательно сложились к тому моменту, когда мы достигаем зрелого возраста. Сегодня мы знаем, что это не так. Нервные клетки регулярно разрывают старые связи и образуют новые. Чем больше новостей мы потребляем, тем больше мы тренируем нейронные цепи, отвечающие за поверхностное ознакомление и выполнение множественных задач, игнорируя те, которые отвечают за чтение и сосредоточенное мышление. Большинство потребителей новостей — даже если они раньше были заядлыми читателями книг — потеряли способность читать большие статьи или книги.
После четырех-пяти страниц они устают, концентрация исчезает, появляется беспокойство. Это не потому, что они стали старше или у них появилось много дел. Просто физическая структура мозга изменилась. News wastes time. Information is no longer a scarce commodity. But attention is.
You are not that irresponsible with your money, reputation or health. Why give away your mind? Новости убивают время Если вы читаете новости по 15 минут утром, потом просматриваете их 15 минут в середине дня, 15 минут перед сном, еще по 5 минут на работе, теперь сосчитаем, сколько времени вы сфокусированы на новостях, то вы теряете как минимум пол дня еженедельно. Новости — не столь ценный товар по сравнению с нашим вниманием. Мы уделяем внимание деньгам, репутации, здоровью. Почему же не заботимся о собственном сознании.
News makes us passive. News stories are overwhelmingly about things you cannot influence. It grinds us down until we adopt a worldview that is pessimistic, desensitised, sarcastic and fatalistic. The scientific term is «learned helplessness». Новости делают нас пассивными Подавляющее большинство новостей рассказывают о вещах, на которые вы не можете повлиять. Ежедневное повторение того, что мы бессильны делает нас пассивными.
Они перемалывают нас, пока мы не смиримся с пессимистичным, бесчувственным, саркастическим и фаталистическим мировоззрением. Есть термин для этого явления — «заученная беспомощность». Я не удивлюсь, если узнаю, что новости являются одной из причин распространяющейся массовой депрессии. News kills creativity. Finally, things we already know limit our creativity. This is one reason that mathematicians, novelists, composers and entrepreneurs often produce their most creative works at a young age.
Their brains enjoy a wide, uninhabited space that emboldens them to come up with and pursue novel ideas. On the other hand, I know a bunch of viciously uncreative minds who consume news like drugs. If you want to come up with old solutions, read news. Society needs journalism — but in a different way. Investigative journalism is always relevant. We need reporting that polices our institutions and uncovers truth.
Long journal articles and in-depth books are good, too. Новости убивают творчество Наконец, то, что мы уже знаем, ограничивает наш творческий потенциал. Это одна из причин, почему математики, писатели, композиторы и предприниматели часто производят свои самые лучшие творческие работы в молодости. Их мозг наслаждается широким, необитаемым пространством, которое дает им возможность придумывать и осуществлять новые идеи. Я не знаю ни одного по-настоящему творческого человека, имеющего пристрастие к новостям — ни писателя, ни композитора, математика, врача, ученого, музыканта, дизайнера, архитектора или художника.
Should the putative offender not be going to commit further crimes, then they have not been incapacitated. The more heinous crimes such as murders have the lowest levels of recidivism and hence are the least likely offences to be subject to incapacitative effects. Antisocial behaviour and the like display high levels of recidivism and hence are the kind of crimes most susceptible to incapacitative effects.
It is shown by life-course studies [47] that long sentences for burglaries amongst offenders in their late teens and early twenties fail to incapacitate when the natural reduction in offending due to ageing is taken into account: the longer the sentence, in these cases, the less the incapacitative effect. Sometimes viewed as a way of "getting even" with a wrongdoer—the suffering of the wrongdoer is seen as a desired goal in itself, even if it has no restorative benefits for the victim. One reason societies have administered punishments is to diminish the perceived need for retaliatory "street justice", blood feud , and vigilantism. Main article: Restorative justice Especially applied to minor offenses, punishment may take the form of the offender "righting the wrong", or making restitution to the victim. Community service or compensation orders are examples of this sort of penalty. Punishment can serve as a means for society to publicly express denunciation of an action as being criminal. Besides educating people regarding what is not acceptable behavior, it serves the dual function of preventing vigilante justice by acknowledging public anger, while concurrently deterring future criminal activity by stigmatizing the offender. This is sometimes called the "Expressive Theory" of denunciation.
Английские слова/лексика на тему «Виды преступлений и наказаний» — Crime and punishment
criminal fine – уголовный штраф. Как "наказание" в английский: punishment, penalty, discipline. Контекстный перевод: Во многих странах строжайшая мера наказания — смертная казнь. ТВ, кино, музыка на английском TV-Кино-Музыка. offers free real time quotes, portfolio, streaming charts, financial news, live stock market data and more.
Как будет "наказание" по-английски? Перевод слова "наказание"
Тайский лидер угрожает наказанием за ложные новости о вакцине. Примеры использования наказание в предложениях и их переводы. Любому лицу, финансирующему террористические акты, назначается наказание в виде лишения свободы сроком до 10 лет. IMDb is the world's most popular and authoritative source for movie, TV and celebrity content. Find ratings and reviews for the newest movie and TV shows. Get personalized recommendations, and learn where to watch across hundreds of streaming providers.
Penalty appeal eligibility
Греческие журналисты назвали данное решение Парламента попыткой ограничить свободу слова и контролировать личное мнение, так как обновленная статья УК касается любой информации, являющейся предметом общественного обсуждения. Таким образом, выражение персональных мнений публично или в Интернете также может быть классифицировано как ложные новости или слухи. Это же касается обсуждения обязательного характера вакцинации от коронавируса.
Tax penalty - Налоговый штраф 18. Monetary penalty - Денежный штраф 19. Speed camera ticket - Штраф за фотофиксацию нарушения 20. Red light violation - Нарушение красной сигнализации 21. Driving without a license - Вождение без прав 22. Driving under influence - Вождение в состоянии алкогольного опьянения 23.
Overloading - Перегрузка транспортного средства 24. Overtaking violation - Нарушение правил обгона 25. Failure to carry documents - Нарушение правил о ношении документов 26. Littering fine - Штраф за мусор в общественных местах 27. Dog fouling fine - Штраф за загрязнение общественных мест животным 28. Smoking fine - Штраф за курение в общественных местах 29. Noise fine - Штраф за нарушение правил шума 30. Unpaid toll fine - Штраф за неуплату платы за проезд 31.
Child car seat fine - Штраф за отсутствие детского автокресла 32. Fishing without a license fine - Штраф за рыболовство без лицензии 33. Hunting without a license fine - Штраф за охоту без лицензии 34. Trespassing fine - Штраф за проникновение на чужую территорию 35. Speeding in a school zone - Превышение скорости в школьной зоне 36. Jaywalking fine - Штраф за переход дороги в неположенном месте 37. Driving without insurance - Вождение без страховки 38. Driving with expired tags - Вождение со сроком действия устаревших номеров 39.
Lane violation - Нарушение правил движения по полосам 40. Seat belt violation - Нарушение правил по использованию ремней безопасности 41.
The two most common penalties that Appeals may remove abate are penalties that can have a reasonable cause: Failure to file Failure to pay Reasonable cause is relief IRS may grant when a taxpayer exercises ordinary business care and prudence in determining their tax obligations but is unable to comply with those obligations due to circumstances beyond their control. The IRS can also remove abate penalties because of certain statutory exceptions and administrative waivers.
Закон получил такое название благодаря мальчику Заку, который в восьмилетнем возрасте в социальной сети X ранее Twitter начал кампанию по сбору средств для благотворительной организации Epilepsy Society. В комментариях к сообщениям некоторые люди начали оставлять фото и GIF-файлы с мерцающим эффектом, в результате чего несколько человек сообщили о возникновении припадков. Рассказать друзьям.
Наказание — перевод на английский
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. Focquaert 9eds.
Howard, J. Hulsman, L. Husak, D. Hsu, J.
Imbresevic, M. Johnstone, G. Kahane, G. Kant, I.
Gregor trans. Kaufman, W. Kelly, E. Kleinig, J.
Knowles, D. Kolber, A. Lacey, N. LaFollette, H.
Lang, A. Law and Philosophy, 2013, Special Issue on V. Tadros, The Ends of Harm, Volume 32: 1—157. Lee, A.
Lee, W. May and Z. Lewis, C. Sellars and J.
Hospers eds. Lipkin, R. Lippke, R. Loader, I.
London, R. Luban, D. Manning, R. Markel, D.
Marshall, S. Mason, K. Mathiesen, T. Matravers, M.
Cruft, M. Kramer, M. Reiff eds. Matthews, R.
May, L. McCloskey, H. McLeod, A. Menninger, K.
Montague, P. Moore, M. Morison, J. Leith and P.
Ingram eds. Morris, C. Morris, H. Morris, N.
Murphy, J. Bandes ed. Nino, C. Nussbaum, M.
Pasternak, A. Pereboom, D. Nadelhoffer ed. Pettit, P.
Philips, M. Primoratz, I. Quinn, W. Ramsay, P.
Rawls, J. Renzo, M. Ristroph, A. Roberts, D.
Robinson, P. Sadurski, W. Scheid, D. Shafer-Landau, R.
Sher, G. Sigler, M. Singer, P.
Translated in English by Constance Garnett. Роман «Преступление и наказание» на английском языке. Автор Ф. Перевод: Констанция Гарнетт.
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.
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. Focquaert 9eds. Howard, J. Hulsman, L. Husak, D. Hsu, J.
Imbresevic, M. Johnstone, G. Kahane, G. Kant, I. Gregor trans. Kaufman, W. Kelly, E. Kleinig, J.
Knowles, D. Kolber, A. Lacey, N. LaFollette, H. Lang, A. Law and Philosophy, 2013, Special Issue on V. Tadros, The Ends of Harm, Volume 32: 1—157. Lee, A.
Lee, W. May and Z. Lewis, C. Sellars and J. Hospers eds. Lipkin, R. Lippke, R. Loader, I.
London, R. Luban, D. Manning, R. Markel, D. Marshall, S. Mason, K. Mathiesen, T. Matravers, M.
Cruft, M. Kramer, M. Reiff eds. Matthews, R. May, L. McCloskey, H. McLeod, A. Menninger, K.
Montague, P. Moore, M. Morison, J. Leith and P. Ingram eds. Morris, C. Morris, H. Morris, N.
Murphy, J. Bandes ed. Nino, C. Nussbaum, M. Pasternak, A. Pereboom, D. Nadelhoffer ed. Pettit, P.
Philips, M. Primoratz, I. Quinn, W. Ramsay, P. Rawls, J. Renzo, M.