Latest London news, business, sport, celebrity and entertainment from the London Evening Standard. Тайский лидер угрожает наказанием за ложные новости о вакцине. BuzzFeed has breaking news, vital journalism, quizzes, videos, celeb news, Tasty food videos, recipes, DIY hacks, and all the trending buzz you’ll want to share with your friends. Copyright BuzzFeed, Inc. All rights reserved.
Жизель Бюндхен разрыдалась из-за полицейского, выписавшего ей штраф на дороге
"Deuspi" is a silent film without any language spoken, so we will be exploiting the visuals in this lesson by getting students to create their original sentences in English to describe what they. Страх наказания не помогают предотвратить преступление. • Мы не всегда можем быть уверены, что кто-то виноват. Люди были приговорены к смертной казни, а позднее было обнаружено, что они абсолютно невиновны. •. Русско-английский словарь. Перевод «Наказание». на английский язык: «punishment».
Срочно нужно 5 наказаний на английском языке?
английский язык онлайн. Клингонский (pIqaD) азербайджанский албанский амхарский английский арабский армянский африкаанс баскский белорусский бенгальский бирманский болгарский боснийский валлийский венгерский вьетнамский гавайский галисийский греческий грузинский гуджарати датский зулу. Many translated example sentences containing "наказание" – English-Russian dictionary and search engine for English translations. Новости, спорт и мнения из глобального издания The Guardian | News.
Фразы по алфавиту
- Russian Politics & Diplomacy - TASS
- Around the world
- Crime and Punishment: death penalty, prison system and laws around the world
- русский - английский словарь
- Punishment - произношение, транскрипция, перевод
PUNISHMENT
Section 15: Penalty for acts of illegal price manipulation. More examples below Это и есть наказание по текущему курсу. This is the punishment of the current rate. Провести расследование и обеспечить преследование и наказание виновных. Conduct investigations and prosecute and punish perpetrators. Согласно первому Посланию Божией Матери Наказание является условным и его можно отвратить. According to the first Message of Our Lady, the Chastisement is conditional and can be averted. Наказание за дезертирство… смерть.
Это же касается обсуждения обязательного характера вакцинации от коронавируса. Фото: Pixabay.
If he be not guilty, you torture the innocent; for, in the eye of the law, every man is innocent whose crime has not been proved. Crimes are more effectually prevented by the certainty than the severity of punishment. In proportion as punishments become more cruel, the minds of men, as a fluid rises to the same height with that which surrounds it, grow hardened and insensible; and the force of the passions still continuing in the space of an hundred years the wheel terrifies no more than formerly the prison. That a punishment may produce the effect required, it is sufficient that the evil it occasions should exceed the good expected from the crime, including in the calculation the certainty of the punishment, and the privation of the expected advantage. All severity beyond this is superfluous, and therefore tyrannical. The death penalty is pernicious to society, from the example of barbarity it affords. If the passions, or the necessity of war, have taught men to shed the blood of their fellow creatures, the laws, which are intended to moderate the ferocity of mankind, should not increase it by examples of barbarity, the more horrible as this punishment is usually attended with formal pageantry. Is it not absurd, that the laws, which detest and punish homicide, should, in order to prevent murder, publicly commit murder themselves?
Food festival is held every year in the month of February. During the event, the participants will have to show their.. Darya578 29 апр. Пояснення :.. Kseniya24011 29 апр. Объяснение : Сравнительные степени "easy" : easy — easier — the easiest. Потому "more" там лишнее... Correct the mistake in each sentence? Verstuk86 29 апр. Think 4. Preferred 5. Fall 6.
Срочно нужно 5 наказаний на английском языке?
Новости серьезно влияют на память. Так как новости нарушают концентрацию, они ослабляют понимание. Есть два типа памяти. Долгосрочная память имеет практические неисчерпаемый объем. Но короткосрочная оперативная память ограничена определенным объемом поступающей информации. ТО, что вы хотите понять и осознать, должно пройти путь в долгосрочную память из короткосрочной. Если фильтр забит, то по-настоящему важная информация не сможет через него пробиться. Новости снижают нашу концентрацию на важном. 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.
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?
Различные государства используют различные методы исполнения приговоров: электрический стул, газовая камера, инъекции яда. В России смертная казнь по-прежнему существует, но парламент начал дискуссии о ее отмене.
В свое время смертная казнь была использована для многих преступлений правонарушений. В Библии, например, по крайней мере, 30 преступлений заслуживают смерти. В Средневековье смертные казни были особенно популярны. Сжигание заживо, повешение, отсечение головы, избиение камнями до смерти, волочение когда человека привязывали к лошади и четвертование были весьма распространены в те темные годы. Сегодня, смертная казнь применяется в тех странах, где она не отменена для только нескольких преступлений, это государственная измена, убийство, вооруженное ограбление и похищение. Люди расходятся во мнениях относительно того, является ли смертная казнь моральной или эффективной в предупреждении преступности. Страх смерти является более эффективным, чем страх тюрьмы. Если посадить их в тюрьму, они смогут убежать и совершить еще одно преступление.
Это жестоко и бесчеловечно.
Напомните, каково наказание, если вас признают виновным в убийстве в вашей стране? Our brave and dutiful officials will quell the rebellion - Да там, в основном, отбывающие наказание впервые. Mostly first-time offenders.
Они не впервые отбывают наказание. Первый же пропущенный рабочий день - и он начнет отбывать наказание в Синг-синг. The first day of work he misses is the day he begins his sentence at sing sing. Это наказание.
Оно повторяется. В наказание за то, что ты мне помогаешь, ты был отдан другому фею в собственность? So as punishment for helping me, you were given to another Fae as property? Они несут полную ответсвенность за меня, пока мое наказание не закончится.
They become completely responsible for me until my punishment is fulfilled. Будет интересно посмотреть, какое наказание он придумает для тебя. It will be fun to see what sort of punishment he comes up with for you. Скажи мне, когда именно наказание виновных стало для тебя важнее помощи невинным?
Tell me, when exactly did punishing the guilty become more important to you than helping the innocent? Поверить не могу! За что мне такое наказание!
Штрафы английских игроков за скандальные высказывания в социальных сетях достигли 350 тысяч фунтов
Бесплатный сервис Google позволяет мгновенно переводить слова, фразы и веб-страницы. Поддерживается более 100 языков. английский испанский французский португальский русский турецкий. английский испанский французский португальский русский турецкий. Бесплатный сервис Google позволяет мгновенно переводить слова, фразы и веб-страницы. Поддерживается более 100 языков. Breaking headlines and latest news from the US and the World. Exclusives, live updates, pictures, video and comment from The Sun.
Жизель Бюндхен разрыдалась из-за полицейского, выписавшего ей штраф на дороге
Penal desert constitutes not just a necessary, but an in-principle sufficient reason for punishment only in principle, however, since there are good reasons — to do with the costs, both material and moral, of punishment — why we should not even try to punish all the guilty. Negative retributivism, by contrast, provides not a positive reason to punish, but rather a constraint on punishment: punishment should be imposed only on those who deserve it, and only in proportion with their desert. Because negative retributivism represents only a constraining principle, not a positive reason to punish, it has been employed in various mixed accounts of punishment, which endorse punishment for consequentialist reasons but only insofar as the punishment is no more than is deserved see s. 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.
Налагать на кого нибудь наказание.
Заслужить наказание. Подвергнуться наказанию за что… … Толковый словарь Ушакова наказание — телесное, строгое, легкое, исправительное, уголовное , взыскание, кара, казнь, пеня, расправа, штраф, эпитимия. Ср … Словарь синонимов Наказание — Любая реакция, следующая за определенным событием и уменыпающая вероятность возникновения этого события в будущем. К примеру, если ребенка бранят каждый раз, когда он кормит собаку едой со стола, то в конце концов он прекратит это делать.
Александр Пушкин Кто жалеет розги своей, тот ненавидит сына; а кто любит, тот с детства наказывает его.
Test your English vocabulary size, and measure how many words you know.
It had subjected the Palestinian people to collective punishment, destroying basic infrastructure on a wide scale, including electricity generating stations and sources of clean drinking water in the Gaza Strip, and had tightened its blockade, closing the entrances to towns and villages in the Gaza Strip and elsewhere, preventing the population from obtaining daily necessities such as food, medicine and fuel, as well as materials for reconstruction following the destruction wrought by Israel.
How many English words do you know?
Текст на английском с переводом для универа
| Перевод слова НАКАЗАНИЕ. Как будет НАКАЗАНИЕ по-английски? | Latest London news, business, sport, celebrity and entertainment from the London Evening Standard. |
| penalty notice – English translation | 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. |
| The Times & The Sunday Times Homepage | 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. |
| Russian Politics & Diplomacy | Translated in English by Constance Garnett. Роман «Преступление и наказание» на английском языке. |
Произношение
- Punishment - Wikipedia
- В Британии анонсировали ужесточение наказания за нарушение закона о шпионаже
- Выберите здание:
- Penalty appeal | Internal Revenue Service
- Help Menu Mobile
Текст на английском с переводом для универа
| Перевод текстов | Аннотация. Цель данной статьи – выявить трудности перевода реалий профессий и должностей в романе Ф.М. Достоевского «Преступление и наказание» на английский язык. |
| Штрафы английских игроков за скандальные высказывания в социальных сетях достигли 350 тысяч фунтов | Live news, investigations, opinion, photos and video by the journalists of The New York Times from more than 150 countries around the world. Subscribe for coverage of U.S. and international news, politics, business, technology, science, health, arts, sports and more. |
| Перевод "наказание" на английский | offers free real time quotes, portfolio, streaming charts, financial news, live stock market data and more. |
| Штрафы английских игроков за скандальные высказывания в социальных сетях достигли 350 тысяч фунтов | How does "наказание нанесен" translate from russian to english: translations with transcription, pronunciation and examples in the online dictionary. |
Penalty appeal eligibility
| В Британии анонсировали ужесточение наказания за нарушение закона о шпионаже | Дисциплинарные органы Футбольной ассоциации Англии за период с 2011 года оштрафовали английских футболистов на 350 тысяч фунтов стерлингов за недопустимые сообщения в социальных |
| Geko 6800 ED-AA/HHBA Handbücher | ManualsLib | Live news, investigations, opinion, photos and video by the journalists of The New York Times from more than 150 countries around the world. Subscribe for coverage of U.S. and international news, politics, business, technology, science, health, arts, sports and more. |
Error — JavaScript not Loaded
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. НАКАЗАНИЕ — НАКАЗАНИЕ, наказания, ср. 1. Взыскание, налагаемое имеющим право, власть или силу, на того, кто совершил преступление или проступок; кара. По закону люди, совершившие преступления, должны быть наказаны, заключены в тюрьму или даже приговорены к смертной казни. Без наказания наша жизнь в обществе была бы менее безопасной, хотя иногда наказание бывает недостаточно строгим, по моему мнению. Как переводится «наказание» с русского на английский: переводы с транскрипцией, произношением и примерами в онлайн-словаре. BuzzFeed has breaking news, vital journalism, quizzes, videos, celeb news, Tasty food videos, recipes, DIY hacks, and all the trending buzz you’ll want to share with your friends. Copyright BuzzFeed, Inc. All rights reserved. контексты с "punishment" в английском с переводом "наказание" на русский от PROMT, устойчивые словосочетания и идиомы, значения слов в разных контекстах.
Примеры употребления "punishment" в английском с переводом "наказание"
Or kidnappers? In some countries capital punishment has been abolished. But it is still used in others. Different states use different methods of execution: the electric chair, gas chamber, injection of poison. 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.
However, fortunately enough for Franklin, he was not convicted until almost four decades after the murder and, in an unusual turn of events, was tried in juvenile court. Franklin was fifteen […] Have no time to work on your essay?
The use of the death penalty was for punishing people for committing relentless crimes. The severity of the punishment were much more inferior in comparison to modern day. These inferior punishments included boiling live bodies, burning at the stake, hanging, and extensive use of the guillotine to decapitate criminals.
Do you really learn not to be violent from that or instead do you learn how it is okay for moms or dads to hit their children in order to teach them something? This is exactly how the death penalty works. The death penalty has been a form of punishment for decades.
What do those who are victimized personally or have suffered from a tragic event involving a loved-one or someone near and dear to their heart, expect from the government? Convicted felons of this nature and degree of unlawfulness should be sentenced to death. Psychotic killers and rapists need the ultimate consequences such as the death penalty for […] Have no time to work on your essay?
Thou shall not kill. To me, the death penalty is inhumane. Killing people makes us like the murderers that most of us despise.
No imperfect system should have the right to decide who lives and who dies. The government is made up of imperfect humans, who make mistakes. The only person that should be able to take life, is god.
We relate many criminological theories such as; cognitive theory, deviant place theory, latent trait theory, differential association theory, behavioral theory, attachment theory, lifestyle theory, and biosocial theory. This paper empirically analyzes the idea that capital punishment is inhumane and should be abolished. There are 2 types of cases; civil and criminal cases.
In civil cases, most of the verdict comprises of jail time or fine amount to be paid. These are not as severe except the one related to money laundering and forgery. On the other hand, criminal […] Have no time to work on your essay?
Many citizens would see juveniles as dangerous individuals, but in my opinion how a teenager acts at home starts at home. Punishing a child for something that could have been solved at home is something that should not have to get worse by giving them the death penalty. The subject itself has the roots deep in the beginning of the humankind.
Even if those arguments can be met, even if legal punishment can be justified, at least in principle, the abolitionist challenge is one that must be met, rather than ignored; and it will help to remind us of the ways in which any practice of legal punishment is bound to be morally problematic. Punishment, Crime, and the State Legal punishment presupposes crime as that for which punishment is imposed, and a criminal law as that which defines crimes as crimes; a system of criminal law presupposes a state, which has the political authority to make and enforce the law and to impose punishments. A normative account of legal punishment and its justification must thus at least presuppose, and should perhaps make explicit, a normative account of the criminal law why should we have a criminal law at all?
See generally Duff 2018: ch. Recent scholarship has thus seen a growing interest in grounding analysis of the justification of punishment in a political theory of the state. Several others are based on versions of republicanism see Pettit 1997; Duff 2001; Dagger 2007 and 2011a; Yankah 2015; for other recent contributions showing the importance of political theory, see Brudner 2009; Brooks 2011; Sigler 2011; Markel 2012; Chiao 2016 and 2018.
How far it matters, in this context, to make explicit a political theory of the state depends on how far different plausible political theories will generate different accounts of how punishment can be justified and should be used. We cannot pursue this question here for two sharply contrasting views on it, see Philips 1986; M. Davis 1989 , save to note one central point.
For any political theory that takes seriously the idea of citizenship as full membership of the polity, the problem of punishment takes a particularly acute form, since we have now to ask how punishment can be consistent with citizenship how citizens can legitimately punish each other : if we are not to say that those who commit crimes thereby forfeit their status as citizens see s. Before we tackle such theories of punishment, however, we should look briefly at the concept of crime, since that is one focus of the abolitionist critique of punishment. On a simple positivist view of law, crimes are kinds of conduct that are prohibited, on pain of threatened sanctions, by the law; and for positivists such as Bentham, who combine positivism with a normative consequentialism, the questions of whether we should maintain a criminal law at all, and of what kinds of conduct should be criminalised, are to be answered by trying to determine whether and when this method of controlling human conduct is likely to produce a net increase in good.
For the criminal law portrays crime not merely as conduct which has been prohibited, but as a species of wrongdoing: whether our inquiry is analytical into the concept of crime or normative as to what kinds of conduct, if any, should be criminal , we must therefore focus on that notion of wrongdoing. Crimes are, at least, socially proscribed wrongs — kinds of conduct that are condemned as wrong by some purportedly authoritative social norm. Tort law, for instance, deals in part with wrongs that are non-private in that they are legally and socially declared as wrongs — with the wrong constituted by libel, for instance.
She must decide to bring, or not to bring, a civil case against the person who wronged her; and although she can appeal to the law to protect her rights, the case is still between her and the defendant. Morris 1968: 477—80; Murphy 1973; Dagger 1993 and 2008 ; or they undermine the trust on which social life depends Dimock 1997. But such accounts distract our attention from the wrongs done to the individual victims that most crimes have, when it is those wrongs that should be our central concern: we should condemn the rapist or murderer, we should see the wrong he has done as our concern, because of what he has done to his victim.
One can of course count a criminal conviction as a kind of punishment: but it does not entail the kind of materially burdensome punishment, imposed after conviction, with which penal theorists are primarily concerned. More plausibly, the abolitionist claim could be that rather than take wrongdoing as our focus, we should focus on the harm that has been done, and on how it can be repaired; we will return to this suggestion in section 7 below. Now it is a familiar and disturbing truth that our existing criminal processes — both in their structure and in their actual operations — tend to preclude any effective participation by either victims or offenders, although an adequate response to the criminal wrong that was done should surely involve them both.
Faced, for instance, by feuding neighbours who persistently accuse each other of more or less trivial wrongs, it might indeed be appropriate to suggest that they should forget about condemning each other and look for a way of resolving their conflict. So, we must turn now to the question of what could justify such a system of punishment. Consequentialist Accounts Many people, including those who do not take a consequentialist view of other matters, think that any adequate justification of punishment must be basically consequentialist.
For we have here a practice that inflicts, indeed seeks to inflict, significant hardship or burdens: how else could we hope to justify it than by showing that it brings consequential benefits sufficiently large to outweigh, and thus to justify, those burdens? However, when we try to flesh out this simple consequentialist thought into something closer to a full normative account of punishment, problems begin to appear. A consequentialist must justify punishment if she is to justify it at all as a cost-effective means to certain independently identifiable goods for two simple examples of such theories, see Wilson 1983; Walker 1991.
Whatever account she gives of the final good or goods at which all action ultimately aims, the most plausible immediate good that a system of punishment can bring is the reduction of crime. A rational consequentialist system of law will define as criminal only conduct that is in some way harmful; in reducing crime we will thus be reducing the harms that crime causes. It is commonly suggested that punishment can help to reduce crime by deterring, incapacitating, or reforming potential offenders though for an argument that incapacitation is not a genuinely punitive aim, see Hoskins 2016: 260.
There are of course other goods that a system of punishment can bring. It can reassure those who fear crime that the state is taking steps to protect them—though this is a good that, in a well-informed society, will be achieved only insofar as the more immediate preventive goods are achieved. It can also bring satisfaction to those who want to see wrongdoers suffer — though to show that to be a genuine good, rather than merely a means of averting vigilantism and private revenge, we would need to show that it involves something more than mere vengeance, which would be to make sense of some version of retributivism.
In consequentialist terms, punishment will be justified if it is an effective means of achieiving its aim, if its benefits outweigh its costs, and if there is no less burdensome means of achieving the same aim. It is a contingent question whether punishment can satisfy these conditions, and some objections to punishment rest on the empirical claim that it cannot — that there are more effective and less burdensome methods of crime reduction see Wootton 1963; Menninger 1968; Golash 2005: chs. Our focus here, however, will be on the moral objections to consequentialist accounts of punishment — objections, basically, that crime-reductive efficiency does not suffice to justify a system of punishment.
The most familiar line of objection to consequentialist penal theories contends that consequentialists would be committed to regarding manifestly unjust punishments the punishment of those known to be innocent, for instance, or excessively harsh punishment of the guilty to be in principle justified if they would efficiently serve the aim of crime reduction: but such punishments would be wrong, because they would be unjust see e. There are some equally familiar consequentialist responses to this objection. Another is to argue that in the real world it is extremely unlikely that such punishments would ever be for the best, and even less likely that the agents involved could be trusted reliably to pick out those rare cases in which they would be: thus we, and especially our penal officials, will do best if we think and act as if such punishments are intrinsically wrong and unjustifiable see e.
Another objection to consequentialist accounts focuses not on potential wrongs done to the innocent but rather on the wrong allegedly done to the guilty. Consequentialist punishment, on this objection, fails to respect the person punished as an autonomous moral agent. In Kantian terms, such punishment treats those punished as mere means to achieving some social good, rather than respecting them as ends in themselves Kant 1797: 473; Murphy 1973.
One might argue that if punishment is reserved for those who voluntarily break the law, it does not treat them merely as means. Indeed, Kant himself suggested that as long as we reserve punishment only for those found guilty of crimes, then it is permissible to punish with an eye toward potential benefits Kant 1797: 473. As we have seen, though, insofar as such an approach relies on endorsing prohibitions on punishment of the innocent or disproportionate punishment of the guilty, the challenge remains that such constraints appear to be merely contingent if grounded in consequentialist considerations.
Conversely, if the constraints are more than merely contingent, it appears that they will be based on some deontological considerations, in which case the overall theory will no longer be purely consequentialist, but rather a mixed theory see s. The criminal law, and the institution of punishment, in a liberal society should treat offenders as still members of the polity who despite having violated its values could, and should, nonetheless re commit to these values. A possible response is that a penal system aimed at crime reduction through deterrence need not be exclusionary, as it treats all community members equally, namely as potential offenders Hoskins 2011a: 379—81.
Retributivist Accounts Whereas consequentialist accounts regard punishment as justified instrumentally, as a means to achieving some valuable goal typically crime reduction , retributivist accounts contend that punishment is justified as an intrinsically appropriate, because deserved, response to wrongdoing but see Berman 2011 for an argument that some recent versions of retributivism actually turn it into a consequentialist theory. Penal desert constitutes not just a necessary, but an in-principle sufficient reason for punishment only in principle, however, since there are good reasons — to do with the costs, both material and moral, of punishment — why we should not even try to punish all the guilty. Negative retributivism, by contrast, provides not a positive reason to punish, but rather a constraint on punishment: punishment should be imposed only on those who deserve it, and only in proportion with their desert.
Because negative retributivism represents only a constraining principle, not a positive reason to punish, it has been employed in various mixed accounts of punishment, which endorse punishment for consequentialist reasons but only insofar as the punishment is no more than is deserved see s. 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.
Court fee - Судебный сбор 11. Fine amount - Сумма штрафа 12. Late fee - Пеня за просрочку 13.
Penalty points - Штрафные очки 14. Penalty notice - Уведомление о штрафе 15. Penalty charge - Штрафная плата 16. Administrative fine - Административный штраф 17.
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.
(наказание)
News severely affects memory. There are two types of memory. The path from short-term to long-term memory is a choke-point in the brain, but anything you want to understand must pass through it. If this passageway is disrupted, nothing gets through. Because news disrupts concentration, it weakens comprehension. Online news has an even worse impact. News is an intentional interruption system.
Новости подавляют мышление Мышление требует концентрации. Концентрация требует непрерывного времени. Новости специально разработаны, чтобы прерывать вас. Они похожи на вирусы, которые крадут ваше внимание для своих целей. Новости уменьшают количество думающих людей. Новости серьезно влияют на память.
Так как новости нарушают концентрацию, они ослабляют понимание. Есть два типа памяти. Долгосрочная память имеет практические неисчерпаемый объем. Но короткосрочная оперативная память ограничена определенным объемом поступающей информации. ТО, что вы хотите понять и осознать, должно пройти путь в долгосрочную память из короткосрочной. Если фильтр забит, то по-настоящему важная информация не сможет через него пробиться.
Новости снижают нашу концентрацию на важном. 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.
Чем меньше вы потребляете новостей, тем больше у вас преимуществ. News has no explanatory power. News items are bubbles popping on the surface of a deeper world.
Will accumulating facts help you understand the world? Sadly, no. The relationship is inverted. The more «news factoids» you digest, the less of the big picture you will understand. Новости ничего не объясняют Новости — как пузырьки на поверхности большого мира. Разве обработка несущественных фактов поможет вам понять мир?
Чем больше фрагметов новостей вы поглотите, тем меньшую картину мира для себя составите. Если бы большее количество кусков информации приводило к экономическому успеху, то журналисты были бы на верху пирамиды. Но не в нашем случае. News is toxic to your body. It constantly triggers the limbic system. Panicky stories spur the release of cascades of glucocorticoid cortisol.
This deregulates your immune system and inhibits the release of growth hormones. In other words, your body finds itself in a state of chronic stress. High glucocorticoid levels cause impaired digestion, lack of growth cell, hair, bone , nervousness and susceptibility to infections. The other potential side-effects include fear, aggression, tunnel-vision and desensitisation. Новости токсичны для вашего организма Они постоянно действуют на лимбическую систему. Панические истории стимулируют образование глюкокортикоидов кортизола.
Это приводит в беспорядок вашу иммунную систему. Ваш организм оказывается в состоянии хронического стресса. Другие возможные побочные эффекты включают страх, агрессию и потерю чувствительности, проблемы с ростом клеток волос, костей, неустойчивость к инфекциям. News increases cognitive errors. News feeds the mother of all cognitive errors: confirmation bias. In the words of Warren Buffett: «What the human being is best at doing is interpreting all new information so that their prior conclusions remain intact.
We become prone to overconfidence, take stupid risks and misjudge opportunities. It also exacerbates another cognitive error: the story bias. Any journalist who writes, «The market moved because of X» or «the company went bankrupt because of Y» is an idiot. I am fed up with this cheap way of «explaining» the world. Новости искажают реальные факты усиливают ошибки восприятия Поток новостей — отец всех когнитивных ошибок: жажды подтверждения. Мы становимся излишне самоуверенными, глупо рискуем и недооцениваем возможности.
Наш мозг жаждет историй, которые «имеют смысл», даже если они не соответствуют действительности. Любой журналист, который пишет, что «рынок существует благодаря X» или «компания обанкротилась из-за Y», — идиот. Мы сыты по горло этим дешевым способом «объяснения» мира. News inhibits thinking. Thinking requires concentration. Concentration requires uninterrupted time.
News pieces are specifically engineered to interrupt you.
The offence is against me and my family. As far as I know, there has been no offence. So there is no need for any punishment. Скопировать Бернард Феррион, вы арестованы за убийство Деллы Феррион. На прошлой неделе они арестовали тебя за то, что ты стукнул свою мать, формально ты избежал наказания С чего они вообще о тебе подумали? They arrested you last week for whacking your mother. You got off on a technicality.
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.
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. 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.