中国政法大学法律英语口语精彩试题及问题详解整理

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.

ⅠThe 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，民法起源于古罗马，普通法起源于英格兰

ⅡThe 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.

普通法的主要传统渊源是案例法，民法的主要传统渊源是成文法。因此民法国家用许多成文法典取代普通法国家的不成文法

ⅢThe civil law system pays more attention to substantive law; the common law system pays more attention to procedural rules.

民法法系更多关注实体法，普通法更关注程序规则

ⅣThe 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.

法的分类不同，民法法系分为公法和私法，普通法法系分为普通法和衡平法

ⅤThe 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.

法官和学者的作用不同，因为理论和学说在民法法系中的重要性，学者在教授学生法律时十分重要。相反的，案例法是普通法法系的主要渊源，因此法官在审理案件时有造法的自由裁量权

ⅥThe civil procedure: Adversary system (对抗式诉讼)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（纠问式诉讼）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.

民事诉讼程序：普通法法系的对抗式需要双方把案件展示给法官或陪审团。法官应该中立和公正。民法法系的纠问式诉讼给予法官在审理过程中调查案件的权力，也可以讯问双方当事人和证人。

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.

美国存在52个法院系统，每一个州都有自己的法院系统，还有一个是哥伦比亚特区的和一个联邦法院系统。它们都是独立的法院系统。

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：

在州法院系统中，法院的结构和名称各不相同。但所有的州法院系统都是一种层级结构，低级法院的判决可能被高级法院所推翻，但型的州法院系统通常包括以下几个层级：

1) Trial courts of inferior jurisdiction

2) trial courts of general jurisdiction

3) appellate courts

下级管辖权的初审法院

普遍管辖权的初审法院

上诉法院

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.

下级管辖权的初审法院审理标的额相对小的民事案件和轻微的刑事违法案件。普遍管辖权的初审法院审理各种类型的案件，没有数额或标的的限制。

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.

每个案件都应该先在初审法院审理，输掉的一方有权将案件上诉到上诉法院，每个州都有它的终审法院，受理上诉的法院会作出最终的裁决（受制于美国最高法院作出的关于联邦问题的临时性的判决对法律的解释）大多数州都有中级上诉法院，有权最终处理大多数经上诉法院审理的案子。

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.

联邦法院的结构类似于各州的结构，分为三层：

有普遍管辖权的联邦地区法院，和有各种有限管辖权的法院

联邦上诉法院（中级上诉法院）和

美国最高法院。不像联邦司法系统的由国会产生的其他法院，最高法院由宪法产生。还有一些联邦专门法院，比如索赔法院和税务法院，运作类似于联邦地区法院，只是拥有专门管辖权。

3.To discuss the main features of the American court system

There 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 jurisdiction 3) appellate courts

The 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

翻译：请简述美国法庭系统的特点

美国的52个州都有其自己的法院系统。州与州之间法院结构和法院的名称也各不相同，但是所有州的法院体制都表现出所谓的层级结构，也就是一种组织方式的不同——低一级法院做出的判决可以在更高一级审判组织重新审查。学生阅读的案例书中90%或者更多的州法院案例是上诉案件的判决，但是所有这些上诉案件在到达州最高法院之前都经过了初审阶段，也许还经过中级上诉法院阶段。1具有有限管辖权的初审法院2具有普遍管辖权的初审法院3上诉法院

每个州都有自己的初级或低级法院，它的管辖权限定在涉及小数额金钱争议的民事诉讼案件，和轻微的刑事案件。具有普遍管辖权的法院可以审判所有案件。

每个案子必须先有初审法院进行审理，然后可以上诉到上诉法院，每个州都

有自己的终审法院

联邦法院系统很相似，法院受理的大部分案件可以归入一下三种案件：（1）联邦地方法院（2）联邦上诉法院（3）联邦最高法院。最高法院是唯一的一个依联邦宪法直接设置的法院

另一个版本：

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 jurisdiction

3) appellate courts

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.

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.

请讨论一下管辖权的重要性。

首先，它可以使参与者以独特的方式提起诉讼

其次，它可以使法院更容易的了解整个案件。为公民进行诉讼提供方便

最后，节省法律资源并且有助于法律程序的流畅化。

另一个版本：

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 Ⅰthrough Ⅶof 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国宪法中包含很多重要的宪法原则，例如制约与平衡原则。美国宪法的第一条至第七条规定了政府的结构组织，条文概括了关于政府职能的三个分支，立法权归属于两院制国会,国会分为参议院和下议院，行政大权由总统为首的阁掌握，总统由全美人民投票选举，司法权则归属于以联邦最高法院为首的各级法院。这种天才的制度设计防止权力过分集中。

这些制度上和程序上的保障使得政府的统治更加公平和正义。

6. To discuss the significance of case Marbury vs. Madison. P47-59 Marbury 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 Court‘s 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 Court‘s 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 Court‘s 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.

马伯里诉麦迪逊案，是美国法律历史上具有里程碑意义的案件。它奠定了美国宪法中司法审查的先例。

本案中，首席大法官马歇尔裁定联邦最高法院不能判原告马伯里胜诉，因为它不具有此案的司法管辖权。判决解决了了党的燃眉之急，避开了争议，但争议是它最大的意义在于法庭假定自己拥有审查立法或者国会的举动违宪与否的权力。这种评价在搁置争议的同时极大的提升了法院的权威。

所以这个案件第一次确立了司法审查原则，赋予了最高法院向最高行政当局和国家立法机构进行违宪审查的权力。此项原则同时也赋予了最高法院的宪法最终解释权。

司法审查原则的确立在美国具有非凡的意义，它成为美国政府组织结构中理所当然且必须存在的的组成部分。这么多年来，最高法院的判决已经改变了很多宪法条文的解释，却没有对原文进行修正。当国会或者行政当局的行为面临违宪质疑的时候，是法院系统拥有最终的判决权。

这个案件以及司法审查原则同时也提升了最高法的权威，进一步确认了制衡原则中的司法权。立法和行政对此

并不满意，但是现在，这项制度已经建立起来，并且连总统也不能挑战它。

总之一句话，这个案件确立了美国宪法制度中不可或缺的司法审查制度。所以宪法学者，一致认为此案件是美国历史上最重要的案件。

7. The main differences between substantive law and procedural law. ( P99-P101)实体法与程序法的区别

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.

程序法一般规定权利实现的形式和方法，实体法则规定权利容本身，因此，程序法经常被称作“法律程序法”，因为程序法的功能在于保障实体法中的权利的实现。

The differences are as follows:两者区别

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 person‘s 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.

它们包含了不同的规则和容。实体法提供了有关权利和义务的规则。而程序法规定了实现权利和履行义务的方法。例如，在侵权法领域，侵权责任法（实体法）规定了损害赔偿的计算方法，相反，程序法确立了诉讼程序以及被告述“诉求“时所应具备的细节程度，同时，它还规定了有关证据规则。

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.

反欺诈法反映了实体决策和程序决策的不同。反欺诈法中制度设计的初衷在于解决这种困难：双方当事人约定口头合同，但另一方反悔否认此合同的存在。然而，反欺诈法,有时是由一个警示性政策而不是基于程序性目的。该策略是实体法上的，因为它专注于诉讼背景下的外在行为，而不是口头合同在诉讼过程中所能引发的问题。

8. Whether the death penalty should be abolished in America. (P66-P68 )在美国死刑是否应当被废除？

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 ―life 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 person‘s 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, isn‘t 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.

为什么应当废除死刑有这样几个理由：死刑是一个有缺陷的机制。证据表明，刑事司法系统（CJS）充斥着错误、贪官污吏和有缺陷的做法，但这个系统是仍然被授权作为执行死刑的机构。事实上，许多死囚被宣布无罪，仅在2003年就包括12例，这警示我们该系统需要大修。从道德的角度来说：在许多情况下，关于死刑的道德争论集中在―以眼还眼‖，或―以命抵命‖的经营理念。这个论点主死刑的道义上的公正地惩罚死罪。然而，真正的道德问题应该是是否有人有资格说应由谁生谁死。以另一个人的生命通过一种犯罪行为，或者通过死刑是错误的。在大多数情况下，已被判处死刑的罪犯被保留了生命。然而，具有讽刺意味的是，

一个理应重视人的生命社会，却剥夺一个杀人犯的生命，而这个刑事司法系统有可能对无辜的人执行死刑？就费用而言：死囚监狱需要比囚犯监狱最为更昂贵的安全设施。这种说法是真实的。预审和审判死刑案件的成本远远大于非死刑案件。此外，死刑案件的上诉和再审的成本是天文数字。省下来的钱应该花在预防犯罪方案和教育，重塑，回到发展经济，而不是花费数十亿美元在全国围谴责罪犯死刑，判处终身监禁的囚犯。

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 the right toremain silent; being clearly informed of that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him.

Miranda warning gurantees the constitutional rights citizens have during the criminal investigating process. Those rights are mainly from the fifth and sixth amendments.

Miranda warning also means the confession made by the suspects cannot be used as the evidence in court to make a sentence. Therefore,

this warning restrains the police from using illegal methods through undue process to investigate the crime and to get confession from suspects.

米兰达警告：在刑事犯罪嫌疑人被询问之前，警察将其羁押时应该告诉他们的宪法权利。容包括：有权保持沉默；但其说的每一句话都将作为呈堂证供；有权咨询律师，包括在其被询问的过程中律师也可以在场。如果嫌疑人没有钱请律师，也会为他免费请代理律师。

米兰达警告保证了公民在刑事犯罪调查过程中的宪法权利，主要是宪法修正案五和修正案六中的权利。

米兰达警告同时也意味着嫌疑人的供述不能作为法庭审判的依据。

因此，米兰达警告限制了警察用非法的诉讼程序去调查犯罪以及从嫌疑人出得到供述。

10. To discuss the function of voir dire （P89）

The voir dire is the process used to select a jury.

The prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being chosen to sit on a jury. The function is to select a jury acceptable to both sides. Jurors are excluded by one or two methods: preemptory challenge and the challenge for cause. Jurors are excluded who

1) have already formed an opinion about the guilt or innocence of the accused;

2) are related to any of the parties or legal actors in the case;

3) are physically or mentally impaired to the extent that the impairment will interfere with their decision-making process or

4) are otherwise considered to be incapable of remaining impartial until the case is presented.

There are no limits to the number challenges for cause that either side may employ.

Actually one of the unspoken purposes of the voir dire for the attorneys to get a feel for the personalities and likely views of the people on the jury panel.

陪审团资格审查程序是用来选择一个合格的陪审团。

在被选择成为一个真正的陪审团成员之前，准陪审员们被询问关于他们的背景和潜在的偏见的问题。陪审团资格审查程序的功能是选择一个可以被双方当事人接受的陪审团。排除不符合条件的准陪审员是通过一个或者两个办法，即无因回避和有因回避。被排除的陪审员是以下几种人：（1）已经形成一个关于控告是否有罪或者无罪的观点的人

（2）和本案中任何一方当事人有关系或者法律问题参与者有关系的（3）曾经在生理上和精神上受到过伤害的人，从某种程度上而言，这种伤害会干预到他们的决策过程（4从其他方面而言，是那些被认为不能保持公正直到案件被呈报的人。

这里没有限制对于任何一方可能被雇佣的有因回避的数量。

事实上，陪审团资格审查程序不言而喻的目的之一是对于律师来说可以得到一种对于他们的人格和可能的观点被采纳而且出现在陪审团成员的中的满足感。

11. on what do you think it is proper for the appellate courts to focus? (p19)

(你认为上诉法院应该如何合理行使权力?)

The exercise of appellate jurisdiction is to review the action of the lower judicial tribunals of the state. Actually,the scope of judicial review which the court exercises in such cases is relatively narrow;it does not retry the case on the merits,and it does not substitute its idea of justice for those of the trial court;what it does is to review the record of the proceedings to determine whether or not the lower court committed error on its procedure or in applying the substantive law to the facts of the case. (行使上诉管辖权的法院职责即接收下级州司法审判机关的上诉。事实上，这些法院在上诉案件上的司法审查权限是相对狭窄的。它不对上诉案件的事实曲直进行重审，也并不完全推翻一审法院做出的审判意见；它要所的是检查一审法院的审判记录来判定是否下级法院有在程序和具体案件事实的法律适用上存在错误。)

In my view,it is proper to restrict the functions of appellate court in the law applying and procedure aspects,instead of consuming another period of time to retry the case,which leads to a waste of judicial resources and failure to give its full attention to the novel and socially important controversies.This funtion may also better protect the appellate review right of each individual involved in the case.

(在我看来，应该限制上诉法院在法律适用和程序等方面的权限，而非耗费时间进行重新审理，这样会导致司法资源的浪费而忽视新的真正重要的社会矛盾。上诉法院的这种功能也将更有利于重新审查案件中每个个体的权利。)

12. What‘s the differences between the torts and crimes?（P62）

(侵权与犯罪的差异何如？)

As we all kown,important distinctions exist between civil and criminal laws. [Civil violations (civil wrongs)are often referred to as torts.]

Here is a list of the main differences between crimes and torts:

(众所周知，民法和刑法之间存在着十分显著的差异。民法上的过错一般就指向侵权。以下是犯罪与侵权之间一些差别：)

ⅠNature

A crime is considered to be a wrong against all of society,whereas a tort is considered to be a private matter between the parties directly involved.

(1、本质上的差异

犯罪指一种有违社会整体利益违法行为，而侵权则是发生在直接相关的当事人之间的一种私法上的违法行为。)

ⅡThe persons who actually prosecute the case.

A specially designated state prosecutor/federal official directs the proceedings when crimes are involved,However,in tort action the individual against whom the wrong has been committed generally hire an attorney to process the claim