急需帮忙！法律英语论文的Title
我是一名法学的大一学生需要写一篇法律英语论文没有想好什么题目有没有学法律的同胞为我提供一些建议？当然不要太过深刻的比较浅显就好...
我是一名法学的大一学生 需要写一篇法律英语论文 没有想好什么题目 有没有学法律的同胞为我提供一些建议？当然不要太过深刻的 比较浅显就好
展开
1个回答
展开全部
O. J. Simpson murder case
辛普森杀妻案
The O. J. Simpson murder case has been described as the most publicized criminal trial in history,[1] in which O. J. Simpson, former American football star and actor, was brought to trial for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 after a lengthy trial, the longest jury trial in California history.[2]
Simpson hired a high-profile defense team led by Johnnie Cochran and F. Lee Bailey. Los Angeles County believed it had a solid prosecution case, but Cochran created in the minds of the jury the belief that there was reasonable doubt about the DNA evidence (then a relatively new type of evidence in trials),[3] including that the blood-sample evidence had allegedly been mishandled by lab scientists and technicians.[4] Cochran and the defense team also alleged other misconduct by the Los Angeles Police Department. The televising of the lengthy trial riveted national attention on the dramatic case. By the end of the criminal trial, national surveys showed dramatic differences between most blacks and most whites in terms of their assessment of Simpson's guilt.[5]
Later, both the Brown and Goldman families sued Simpson for damages in a civil trial, which has a lower standard of proof for determining responsibility.[citation needed] On February 5, 1997, the jury unanimously found there was a preponderance of evidence to find Simpson liable for damages in the wrongful death of Goldman and battery of Brown. In its conclusions, the jury effectively found Simpson liable for the death of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman.[6] On February 21, 2008, a Los Angeles court upheld a renewal of the civil judgment against him.
这个案子很经典，上面的一段是wiki上的英文案例，你可以找一些关于这个的中文资料，然后选择一个角度（比如种族歧视与陪审团制度的矛盾、毒树之果原则、媒体和舆论与司法公正的矛盾等等），或者一篇参考的中文文章（很多中国的法律人也会研究这个案子，发表一些观点），自己写或者翻译一篇英文论文出来就是了。
下面引用一段英文资料，有个人在www.lawyers.com提问，为什么法院在刑事诉讼中判决辛普森无罪，但是在民事诉讼中又判决他赔偿自己妻子死亡赔偿金。 Jeralyn Merritt对这个问题进行了简略的回答。
我想你大一的论文，字数要求不会太多，所以参考一下他这段答复吧。如果字数不够就把上面wiki的资料加一些进去,简单的交待一下案情。
Q. I am a high school government student, and I have a question that has been bothering me that my teacher refuses to answer. In the O.J. Simpson case I know that the state jury did not find him guilty on the charge of murder, but the federal court did on the charge of wrongful death. What is the difference and why were they able to do that?
-- Geni
A. O.J. Simpson was charged with first degree murder in the state court in California. The jury found him "Not Guilty." A "not guilty" verdict means the state failed to prove the charges "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the standard of proof in all criminal prosecutions. Criminal cases are brought on behalf of the citizens of a particular state or federal district, not by the victims or their families.
After O.J. Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal case, the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman sued him in the state (not federal) court in California for wrongfully causing their deaths. Civil lawsuits for wrongful death are tried for money damages, not to put the defendant in prison. Civil cases are brought in the name of individuals, not in the name of the State.
Different evidence was introduced in the O.J. Simpson civil and criminal trials. For example, although O.J. Simpson denied it, evidence was presented in the civil trial that O.J. Simpson owned a pair of Bruno Magli shoes that matched shoeprints left at the murder scene.
O.J. Simpson exercised his constitutional right against self-incrimination and chose not to testify in the criminal trial. All defendants in criminal cases have this right. In the civil trial, O.J. no longer had such a right because he had been found not guilty of murder and could not be tried again for it. He had to testify when the opposing side called him as a witness. Thus, the jury in the civil case got to hear O.J's testimony while the criminal jury did not.
In the criminal case, the jury got to see that the glove left at the scene of the crime did not fit O.J. Simpson. This experiment was not repeated for the civil jury. The jury in the criminal trial got a far stronger portrayal of the problems with the DNA and other scientific evidence in the case, and the poor management of the crime scene, than did the civil jury. And the criminal jury got to hear the false testimony of Los Angeles police officer Mark Furman, who later admitted lying and pleaded guilty to perjury.
Finally, the burden of proof in criminal and civil cases is different. In criminal cases, the standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." There is also a presumption of innocence that stays with the defendant until and unless the jury returns a guilty verdict. In civil cases, the standard of proof is "by a preponderance of the evidence," which essentially means "more likely than not," or put another way, proof by 51% or more.
The jury's verdict in the civil case was not that O.J. Simpson was guilty of murder, but that he was liable for (which essentially means responsible for causing) the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
In light of the different evidence presented, burdens of proof and ultimate issues the juries were called upon to decide, the verdicts in the criminal and civil trials were not really all that inconsistent.
-- Jeralyn Merritt
辛普森杀妻案
The O. J. Simpson murder case has been described as the most publicized criminal trial in history,[1] in which O. J. Simpson, former American football star and actor, was brought to trial for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 after a lengthy trial, the longest jury trial in California history.[2]
Simpson hired a high-profile defense team led by Johnnie Cochran and F. Lee Bailey. Los Angeles County believed it had a solid prosecution case, but Cochran created in the minds of the jury the belief that there was reasonable doubt about the DNA evidence (then a relatively new type of evidence in trials),[3] including that the blood-sample evidence had allegedly been mishandled by lab scientists and technicians.[4] Cochran and the defense team also alleged other misconduct by the Los Angeles Police Department. The televising of the lengthy trial riveted national attention on the dramatic case. By the end of the criminal trial, national surveys showed dramatic differences between most blacks and most whites in terms of their assessment of Simpson's guilt.[5]
Later, both the Brown and Goldman families sued Simpson for damages in a civil trial, which has a lower standard of proof for determining responsibility.[citation needed] On February 5, 1997, the jury unanimously found there was a preponderance of evidence to find Simpson liable for damages in the wrongful death of Goldman and battery of Brown. In its conclusions, the jury effectively found Simpson liable for the death of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman.[6] On February 21, 2008, a Los Angeles court upheld a renewal of the civil judgment against him.
这个案子很经典，上面的一段是wiki上的英文案例，你可以找一些关于这个的中文资料，然后选择一个角度（比如种族歧视与陪审团制度的矛盾、毒树之果原则、媒体和舆论与司法公正的矛盾等等），或者一篇参考的中文文章（很多中国的法律人也会研究这个案子，发表一些观点），自己写或者翻译一篇英文论文出来就是了。
下面引用一段英文资料，有个人在www.lawyers.com提问，为什么法院在刑事诉讼中判决辛普森无罪，但是在民事诉讼中又判决他赔偿自己妻子死亡赔偿金。 Jeralyn Merritt对这个问题进行了简略的回答。
我想你大一的论文，字数要求不会太多，所以参考一下他这段答复吧。如果字数不够就把上面wiki的资料加一些进去,简单的交待一下案情。
Q. I am a high school government student, and I have a question that has been bothering me that my teacher refuses to answer. In the O.J. Simpson case I know that the state jury did not find him guilty on the charge of murder, but the federal court did on the charge of wrongful death. What is the difference and why were they able to do that?
-- Geni
A. O.J. Simpson was charged with first degree murder in the state court in California. The jury found him "Not Guilty." A "not guilty" verdict means the state failed to prove the charges "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the standard of proof in all criminal prosecutions. Criminal cases are brought on behalf of the citizens of a particular state or federal district, not by the victims or their families.
After O.J. Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal case, the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman sued him in the state (not federal) court in California for wrongfully causing their deaths. Civil lawsuits for wrongful death are tried for money damages, not to put the defendant in prison. Civil cases are brought in the name of individuals, not in the name of the State.
Different evidence was introduced in the O.J. Simpson civil and criminal trials. For example, although O.J. Simpson denied it, evidence was presented in the civil trial that O.J. Simpson owned a pair of Bruno Magli shoes that matched shoeprints left at the murder scene.
O.J. Simpson exercised his constitutional right against self-incrimination and chose not to testify in the criminal trial. All defendants in criminal cases have this right. In the civil trial, O.J. no longer had such a right because he had been found not guilty of murder and could not be tried again for it. He had to testify when the opposing side called him as a witness. Thus, the jury in the civil case got to hear O.J's testimony while the criminal jury did not.
In the criminal case, the jury got to see that the glove left at the scene of the crime did not fit O.J. Simpson. This experiment was not repeated for the civil jury. The jury in the criminal trial got a far stronger portrayal of the problems with the DNA and other scientific evidence in the case, and the poor management of the crime scene, than did the civil jury. And the criminal jury got to hear the false testimony of Los Angeles police officer Mark Furman, who later admitted lying and pleaded guilty to perjury.
Finally, the burden of proof in criminal and civil cases is different. In criminal cases, the standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." There is also a presumption of innocence that stays with the defendant until and unless the jury returns a guilty verdict. In civil cases, the standard of proof is "by a preponderance of the evidence," which essentially means "more likely than not," or put another way, proof by 51% or more.
The jury's verdict in the civil case was not that O.J. Simpson was guilty of murder, but that he was liable for (which essentially means responsible for causing) the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
In light of the different evidence presented, burdens of proof and ultimate issues the juries were called upon to decide, the verdicts in the criminal and civil trials were not really all that inconsistent.
-- Jeralyn Merritt
本回答由提问者推荐
已赞过
已踩过<
评论
收起
你对这个回答的评价是？
推荐律师服务：
若未解决您的问题，请您详细描述您的问题，通过百度律临进行免费专业咨询
