中國(guó)政法大學(xué) 法律英語(yǔ)口語(yǔ)試題及答案整理.doc

1. To discuss the differences between the civil law system and the common law system. (P4 )There are many differences between civil law system and common law system. The original places are different. The civil law system originated in ancient Rome, and the common law system originated in England.起源地不同，民法起源于古羅馬，普通法起源于英格蘭 The main traditional source of the common law is cases, while the main traditional source of the civil law is legislation. Thus there are many codes in civil law countries instead of unwritten laws in common law system.普通法的主要傳統(tǒng)淵源是案例法，民法的主要傳統(tǒng)淵源是成文法。因此民法國(guó)家用許多成文法典取代普通法國(guó)家的不成文法 The civil law system pays more attention to substantive law; the common law system pays more attention to procedural rules.民法法系更多關(guān)注實(shí)體法，普通法更關(guān)注程序規(guī)則 The classification of law is different. The civil law is separated into public law and private law, the common law is separated into common law and equity.法的分類不同，民法法系分為公法和私法，普通法法系分為普通法和衡平法 The role of judges and professors is another difference. Since theory and doctrines is important in legal education of civil law system, professor plays the important role to expose laws to students. In the contrary, case-law is the main source of common law, thus the judges has the discretion to make laws while trialing cases.法官和學(xué)者的作用不同，因?yàn)槔碚摵蛯W(xué)說(shuō)在民法法系中的重要性，學(xué)者在教授學(xué)生法律時(shí)十分重要。相反的，案例法是普通法法系的主要淵源，因此法官在審理案件時(shí)有造法的自由裁量權(quán) The civil procedure: Adversary system (對(duì)抗式訴訟)of common law system needs the parties to show the case the jury or the judges. And the judges need to be neutral and impartial. Inquisitorial system（糾問(wèn)式訴訟） in civil law countries give the judges the power to investigate the case during the trail and also can ask the parties and the witnesses.民事訴訟程序：普通法法系的對(duì)抗式需要雙方把案件展示給法官或陪審團(tuán)。法官應(yīng)該中立和公正。民法法系的糾問(wèn)式訴訟給予法官在審理過(guò)程中調(diào)查案件的權(quán)力，也可以訊問(wèn)雙方當(dāng)事人和證人。2 To discuss the main features of the American court system(P17-19)There are fifty-two court systems in the U.S. -each of the fifty states has its own system of courts, one for the District of Columbia and a federal system. They are independent systems of court. 美國(guó)存在52個(gè)法院系統(tǒng)，每一個(gè)州都有自己的法院系統(tǒng)，還有一個(gè)是哥倫比亞特區(qū)的和一個(gè)聯(lián)邦法院系統(tǒng)。它們都是獨(dú)立的法院系統(tǒng)。In the state court systems, court structures and court nomenclature vary from state to state. But all the state court systems exhibit a hierarchical structure, in which the decisions of lower courts may be taken for review to a higher court. Typically a state system will include several tiers of court： 在州法院系統(tǒng)中，法院的結(jié)構(gòu)和名稱各不相同。但所有的州法院系統(tǒng)都是一種層級(jí)結(jié)構(gòu)，低級(jí)法院的判決可能被高級(jí)法院所推翻，但型的州法院系統(tǒng)通常包括以下幾個(gè)層級(jí)：1) Trial courts of inferior jurisdiction 2) trial courts of general jurisdiction3) appellate courts下級(jí)管轄權(quán)的初審法院普遍管轄權(quán)的初審法院上訴法院The trial courts of inferior jurisdiction hear civil suits involving relatively small amounts of money and minor violations of the criminal law. While the trial courts of general jurisdiction can hear all kinds of cases, without monetary or subject matter limitation. 下級(jí)管轄權(quán)的初審法院審理標(biāo)的額相對(duì)小的民事案件和輕微的刑事違法案件。普遍管轄權(quán)的初審法院審理各種類型的案件，沒有數(shù)額或標(biāo)的的限制。Every case should first be heard at the trial court. Then the party who loses at the trial court stage has a right to appeal case to the appellate court. Every state has its court of last resort, the appellate court which makes the final decision (subject to occasional review on “federal questions” by the Supreme Court of the United States) of what the law is and should be. Most states have created intermediate appellate courts, empowered to finally dispose of the bulk of appellate cases.每個(gè)案件都應(yīng)該先在初審法院審理，輸?shù)舻囊环接袡?quán)將案件上訴到上訴法院，每個(gè)州都有它的終審法院，受理上訴的法院會(huì)作出最終的裁決（受制于美國(guó)最高法院作出的關(guān)于聯(lián)邦問(wèn)題的臨時(shí)性的判決對(duì)法律的解釋）大多數(shù)州都有中級(jí)上訴法院，有權(quán)最終處理大多數(shù)經(jīng)上訴法院審理的案子。The structure of the federal judicial system is similar to what is found in the various states. There are three levels of courts: (1) U.S. district courts (trial courts of general jurisdiction) and various courts of limited jurisdiction(2) U.S. courts of appeals (intermediate courts of appeals), and (3) the United States Supreme Court. Not like the other courts in federal judicial systems which are created by congress, the Supreme Court is created by Constitution. There are a few specialized federal courts (e.g. , the claims courts or the tax court ) which operate like District court in their specialized jurisdiction.聯(lián)邦法院的結(jié)構(gòu)類似于各州的結(jié)構(gòu)，分為三層：有普遍管轄權(quán)的聯(lián)邦地區(qū)法院，和有各種有限管轄權(quán)的法院聯(lián)邦上訴法院（中級(jí)上訴法院）和美國(guó)最高法院。不像聯(lián)邦司法系統(tǒng)的由國(guó)會(huì)產(chǎn)生的其他法院，最高法院由憲法產(chǎn)生。還有一些聯(lián)邦專門法院，比如索賠法院和稅務(wù)法院，運(yùn)作類似于聯(lián)邦地區(qū)法院，只是擁有專門管轄權(quán)。3.To discuss the main features of the American court systemThere are fifty-two court systems in the U.S. each state has its own system of courts, one for the District of Columbia and a federal system. In the state court systems, court structures vary from state to state. But they all exhibit a hierarchical structure; decisions of lower courts may be reviewed by higher courts. A state system includes:1) Trial courts of inferior jurisdiction 2) trial courts of general jurisdiction3) appellate courtsThe trial courts of inferior jurisdiction hear civil litigations involving small amounts of money and minor violations of the criminal law. While the trial courts of general jurisdiction can hear all kinds of cases. Every case should first be heard at the trial court. Then it can be appealed to the appellate court. Every state has its court of last resort.The structure of the federal system is similar. There are three levels of courts: (1) U.S. district courts (2) U.S. courts of appeals (3) the United States Supreme Court. Not like the other courts in federal systems which are created by congress, the Supreme Court is created by Constitution. There are a few specialized federal courts翻譯：請(qǐng)簡(jiǎn)述美國(guó)法庭系統(tǒng)的特點(diǎn)美國(guó)的52個(gè)州都有其自己的法院系統(tǒng)。州與州之間法院結(jié)構(gòu)和法院的名稱也各不相同，但是所有州的法院體制都表現(xiàn)出所謂的層級(jí)結(jié)構(gòu)，也就是一種組織方式的不同低一級(jí)法院做出的判決可以在更高一級(jí)審判組織重新審查。學(xué)生閱讀的案例書中90%或者更多的州法院案例是上訴案件的判決，但是所有這些上訴案件在到達(dá)州最高法院之前都經(jīng)過(guò)了初審階段，也許還經(jīng)過(guò)中級(jí)上訴法院階段。1具有有限管轄權(quán)的初審法院2具有普遍管轄權(quán)的初審法院3上訴法院每個(gè)州都有自己的初級(jí)或低級(jí)法院，它的管轄權(quán)限定在涉及小數(shù)額金錢爭(zhēng)議的民事訴訟案件，和輕微的刑事案件。具有普遍管轄權(quán)的法院可以審判所有案件。 每個(gè)案子必須先有初審法院進(jìn)行審理，然后可以上訴到上訴法院，每個(gè)州都有自己的終審法院聯(lián)邦法院系統(tǒng)很相似，法院受理的大部分案件可以歸入一下三種案件：（1）聯(lián)邦地方法院（2）聯(lián)邦上訴法院（3）聯(lián)邦最高法院。最高法院是唯一的一個(gè)依聯(lián)邦憲法直接設(shè)置的法院另一個(gè)版本：There are fifty-two court systems in the U.S. -each of the fifty states has its own system of courts, one for the District of Columbia and a federal system. They are independent systems of court. In the state court systems, court structures and court nomenclature vary from state to state. But all the state court systems exhibit a hierarchical structure, in which the decisions of lower courts may be taken for review to a higher court. Typically a state system will include several tiers of court： 1) Trial courts of inferior jurisdiction 2) trial courts of general jurisdiction3) appellate courtsThe trial courts of inferior jurisdiction hear civil suits involving relatively small amounts of money and minor violations of the criminal law. While the trial courts of general jurisdiction can hear all kinds of cases, without monetary or subject matter limitation. Every case should first be heard at the trial court. Then the party who loses at the trial court stage has a right to appeal case to the appellate court. Every state has its court of last resort, the appellate court which makes the final decision (subject to occasional review on “federal questions” by the Supreme Court of the United States) of what the law is and should be. Most states have created intermediate appellate courts, empowered to finally dispose of the bulk of appellate cases.The structure of the federal judicial system is similar to what is found in the various states. There are three levels of courts: (1) U.S. district courts (trial courts of general jurisdiction) and various courts of limited jurisdiction(2) U.S. courts of appeals (intermediate courts of appeals), and (3) the United States Supreme Court. Not like the other courts in federal judicial systems which are created by congress, the Supreme Court is created by Constitution. There are a few specialized federal courts (e.g. , the claims courts or the tax court ) which operate like District court in their specialized jurisdiction.4.To discuss the significance of jurisdiction.First, it can enable the participants to institute a legal proceeding in a specific way. Next, it makes justice understand the whole case easily. It is convenient for the parties take part in the litigation.Finally, save legal resources and smooth the legal proceedings.請(qǐng)討論一下管轄權(quán)的重要性。 首先，它可以使參與者以獨(dú)特的方式提起訴訟 其次，它可以使法院更容易的了解整個(gè)案件。為公民進(jìn)行訴訟提供方便 最后，節(jié)省法律資源并且有助于法律程序的流暢化。另一個(gè)版本：First, defining jurisdiction, and make it simple will help agencies, organizations and citizens to institute legal proceedings to the judicial authorities which have jurisdiction over it, in order to protect the public interests and legitimate rights and interests of the citizens. Next, most ordinary cases will be placed under the primary jurisdiction of the judiciary, it is not only easy for the judiciary to spot investigation to verify the case , conduct legal education, but also to facilitate the participants to take part in the proceedings and the people to hear the case.Finally, this can save manpower, money and time, and smooth the conduct of legal proceedings to protect the procedural rights of participants in the proceedings.5)Please explain a part of the Constitution that impresses you the most.What impress me most is the Constitution includes many significant principles. For example: checks and balances. The government structure is established by Articles through of the Constitution. The document outlines the three main branches , the legislative branch is embodied in the bicameral Congress，the United State Congress which includes the House of Representatives and the Senate ,In addition, it establishes limits on federal and state legislative power ; the executive branch is headed by president who is elected by all the qualified Americans ; the judicial branch is headed by the Supreme Court . This genius institutional design prevents one of the three branches from acquiring dominance over the other. These structural and procedural safeguards help the government rule fairly and justly. 令我印象最深刻的是美國(guó)憲法中包含很多重要的憲法原則，例如制約與平衡原則。美國(guó)憲法的第一條至第七條規(guī)定了政府的結(jié)構(gòu)組織，條文概括了關(guān)于政府職能的三個(gè)分支，立法權(quán)歸屬于兩院制國(guó)會(huì),國(guó)會(huì)分為參議院和下議院，行政大權(quán)由總統(tǒng)為首的內(nèi)閣掌握，總統(tǒng)由全美人民投票選舉，司法權(quán)則歸屬于以聯(lián)邦最高法院為首的各級(jí)法院。這種天才的制度設(shè)計(jì)防止權(quán)力過(guò)分集中。這些制度上和程序上的保障使得政府的統(tǒng)治更加公平和正義。6. To discuss the significance of case Marbury vs. Madison. P47-59Marbury vs. Madison is a landmark case in United States law. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under the Constitution.In this case, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that the Supreme Court could not grant relief to the plaintiff Marbury because it did not has the jurisdiction of the case. This satisfied the immediate concerns of the Republicans and sidestepped the controversy, but the great significance of the case lay in the Courts assumption to itself of the final authority to determine if the Judiciary Act or any other act of Congress was constitutional. Thus the opinion ceded the immediate issue while profoundly enhancing the Courts authority.So the case was the first strong pronouncement of the principle of judicial review, which is the power of the Court to examine legislation and other acts of Congress and to decide their constitutionality. The doctrine also embraces the power of the Court to explain the meaning of the various sections of the Constitution as they apply to particular case brought before the Court. The principle of judicial review has great influence in United States, it has been a nature and necessary part of United States government structure. Over the years, a serious of Court decisions has affected a change in the way many Constitution clauses are interpreted, without amendment to the actual text of the Constitution. And if the actions of Congress or federal agencies are challenged as to the constitutionality, it is the court system that ultimately decides whether or not they are allowable under the Constitution.The case and judicial review also enhance the Courts authority and assert the power of the judiciary under the principle of checks and balances. The other branches such as the legislative bodies and executive offices and levels of government have not always been happy with this, but by now the principle is firmly established and asserted, even the President could not challenge it.In a word, the case established the principle of judicial review which has been a permanent and indispensable feature of United States constitutional system. So the constitutional scholars, by consensus, regard the case as the most important case the Supreme Court ever has decided.馬伯里訴麥迪遜案，是美國(guó)法律歷史上具有里程碑意義的案件。它奠定了美國(guó)憲法中司法審查的先例。本案中，首席大法官馬歇爾裁定聯(lián)邦最高法院不能判原告馬伯里勝訴，因?yàn)樗痪哂写税傅乃痉ü茌牂?quán)。判決解決了了共和黨的燃眉之急，避開了爭(zhēng)議，但爭(zhēng)議是它最大的意義在于法庭假定自己擁有審查立法或者國(guó)會(huì)的舉動(dòng)違憲與否的權(quán)力。這種評(píng)價(jià)在擱置爭(zhēng)議的同時(shí)極大的提升了法院的權(quán)威。 所以這個(gè)案件第一次確立了司法審查原則，賦予了最高法院向最高行政當(dāng)局和國(guó)家立法機(jī)構(gòu)進(jìn)行違憲審查的權(quán)力。此項(xiàng)原則同時(shí)也賦予了最高法院的憲法最終解釋權(quán)。 司法審查原則的確立在美國(guó)具有非凡的意義，它成為美國(guó)政府組織結(jié)構(gòu)中理所當(dāng)然且必須存在的的組成部分。這么多年來(lái)，最高法院的判決已經(jīng)改變了很多憲法條文的解釋，卻沒有對(duì)原文進(jìn)行修正。當(dāng)國(guó)會(huì)或者行政當(dāng)局的行為面臨違憲質(zhì)疑的時(shí)候，是法院系統(tǒng)擁有最終的判決權(quán)。 這個(gè)案件以及司法審查原則同時(shí)也提升了最高法的權(quán)威，進(jìn)一步確認(rèn)了制衡原則中的司法權(quán)。立法和行政對(duì)此并不滿意，但是現(xiàn)在，這項(xiàng)制度已經(jīng)建立起來(lái)，并且連總統(tǒng)也不能挑戰(zhàn)它?？傊痪湓?，這個(gè)案件確立了美國(guó)憲法制度中不可或缺的司法審查制度。所以憲法學(xué)者，一致認(rèn)為此案件是美國(guó)歷史上最重要的案件。7. The main differences between substantive law and procedural law. ( P99-P101)實(shí)體法與程序法的區(qū)別Procedural law are said to define the form and method by which legal rights are enforced. While substantive law are said to define the legal rights themselves. Thus, procedure is often referred to as “adjective law“，because procedural rules function to secure the objectives of substantive law. 程序法一般規(guī)定權(quán)利實(shí)現(xiàn)的形式和方法，實(shí)體法則規(guī)定權(quán)利內(nèi)容本身，因此，程序法經(jīng)常被稱作“法律程序法”，因?yàn)槌绦蚍ǖ墓δ茉谟诒Ｕ蠈?shí)體法中的權(quán)利的實(shí)現(xiàn)。The differences are as follows:兩者區(qū)別They contain different rules and substances. Substantive law provides for the rules about duties or rights. While procedural law sets rules about form or method. For example, in the area of tort law, substantive tort rules govern how the injured persons damages should be measured. In contrast, the law of procedural establishes the method to begin a lawsuit and the degree of detail with which the plaintiff must describe the “claim”. Also, it also provide for the rules of evidence.它們包含了不同的規(guī)則和內(nèi)容。實(shí)體法提供了有關(guān)權(quán)利和義務(wù)的規(guī)則。而程序法規(guī)定了實(shí)現(xiàn)權(quán)利和履行義務(wù)的方法。例如，在侵權(quán)法領(lǐng)域，侵權(quán)責(zé)任法（實(shí)體法）規(guī)定了損害賠償?shù)挠?jì)算方法，相反，程序法確立了訴訟程序以及被告陳述“訴求“時(shí)所應(yīng)具備的細(xì)節(jié)程度，同時(shí)，它還規(guī)定了有關(guān)證據(jù)規(guī)則。Statutes of frauds reflect both procedural policy and substantive policy. They are often designed to avoid the difficulties that one party asserts the existence of an oral contract and the other party denies its existence. However, instead of this procedural purpose, statutes of frauds are sometimes supported by a “cautionary” policy. This policy is a substantive one because it focus on behavior outside the context of litigation rather than problems that oral contracts would cause in the litigation process.反欺詐法反映了實(shí)體決策和程序決策的不同。反欺詐法中制度設(shè)計(jì)的初衷在于解決這種困難：雙方當(dāng)事人約定口頭合同，但另一方反悔否認(rèn)此合同的存在。然而，反欺詐法,有時(shí)是由一個(gè)警示性政策而不是基于程序性目的。該策略是實(shí)體法上的，因?yàn)樗鼘Ｗ⒂谠V訟背景下的外在行為，而不是口頭合同在訴訟過(guò)程中所能引發(fā)的問(wèn)題。8. Whether the death penalty should be abolished in America. (P66-P68 )在美國(guó)死刑是否應(yīng)當(dāng)被廢除？These are the reasons why the death penalty should be abolished:Capital punishment is a flawed machine.Evidence proves that the criminal justice system (CJS) is riddled with errors, corrupt officials, and flawed practices, yet this system is still permitted to execute people. The fact so many individuals have been exonerated from death row, including twelve in 2003 alone, should be a red flag that the system needs overhauled. The moral argument: In many instances the moral argument with regard to capital punishment is centered on the “eye for an eye,” or “l(fā)ife for a life” philosophy. This argument advocates for the death penalty as morally just punishment for capital offenses. However, the real moral question should be whether anyone is qualified to say who should live and who should die. Taking another persons life via a criminal act, or via capital punishment is wrong. In most cases, offenders who have been sentenced to death have taken a life. Yet, isnt it ironic that a society, which supposedly values human life so much that it will take the life of a murderer, will subscribe to a criminal justice system that can potentially execute innocent people? The expense: Housing inmates on death row is much more expensive than housing inmates in a maximum security facility. This statement is true. The pre-trial and trial costs of death penalty cases are much greater than non-capital cases. Also, the cost of appeals and retrials for death penalty cases is astronomical. Instead of spending billions of dollars nationwide to condemn criminals to death, the money saved by sentencing prisoners to life without parole should be spent on crime prevention programs and education, rehabilitation, and putting back into the economy.為什么應(yīng)當(dāng)廢除死刑有這樣幾個(gè)理由：死刑是一個(gè)有缺陷的機(jī)制。證據(jù)表明，刑事司法系統(tǒng)（CJS）充斥著錯(cuò)誤、貪官污吏和有缺陷的做法，但這個(gè)系統(tǒng)是仍然被授權(quán)作為執(zhí)行死刑的機(jī)構(gòu)。事實(shí)上，許多死囚被宣布無(wú)罪，僅在2003年就包括12例，這警示我們?cè)撓到y(tǒng)需要大修。從道德的角度來(lái)說(shuō)：在許多情況下，關(guān)于死刑的道德爭(zhēng)論集中在“以眼還眼”，或“以命抵命”的經(jīng)營(yíng)理念。這個(gè)論點(diǎn)主張死刑的道義上的公正地懲罰死罪。然而，真正的道德問(wèn)題應(yīng)該是是否有人有資格說(shuō)應(yīng)由誰(shuí)生誰(shuí)死。以另一個(gè)人的生命通過(guò)一種犯罪行為，或者通過(guò)死刑是錯(cuò)誤的。在大多數(shù)情況下，已被判處死刑的罪犯被保留了生命。然而，具有諷刺意味的是，一個(gè)理應(yīng)重視人的生命社會(huì)，卻剝奪一個(gè)殺人犯的生命，而這個(gè)刑事司法系統(tǒng)有可能對(duì)無(wú)辜的人執(zhí)行死刑？就費(fèi)用而言：死囚監(jiān)獄需要比囚犯監(jiān)獄最為更昂貴的安全設(shè)施。這種說(shuō)法是真實(shí)的。預(yù)審和審判死刑案件的成本遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)大于非死刑案件。此外，死刑案件的上訴和再審的成本是天文數(shù)字。省下來(lái)的錢應(yīng)該花在預(yù)防犯罪方案和教育，重塑，回到發(fā)展經(jīng)濟(jì)，而不是花費(fèi)數(shù)十億美元在全國(guó)范圍內(nèi)譴責(zé)罪犯死刑，判處終身監(jiān)禁的囚犯。9. To discuss the importance of Miranda warning (P62)Miranda warning is a warning that is required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody before they are interrogated to inform them about their constitutional rights. It includes theright toremain silent; being clearly informed of that anything the person says will be used against that person incourt; the right to consult with anattorneyand to have that attorney present during questioning, if he or she isindigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him.Miranda warning gurantees th