- ベストアンサー
英訳お願いします
- みんなの回答 （1）
- 専門家の回答
質問者が選んだベストアンサー
- ベストアンサー
an instance of .... で 「～の事例」ですからそれでOKです。 裁判所での犯罪の有罪確定の事例ということです。
関連するQ&A
- 和訳をお願い致します(長めです)。
和訳をお願いします。 自分で訳してみたのですが、どうも意味が分かり辛い部分が合って、うまく把握できないので、どなたか和訳をして頂けると助かります。アメリカの交通違反の違反切符についての説明の一部です。 Q：What does it mean to plead “no contest” to a criminal or traffic offense? A: A plea is a person’s formal response to a criminal or traffic charge. A person charged with a criminal or traffic offense is called the defendant. The defendant can choose from the pleas of guilty, not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, or no-contest. Entering a plea refers to the judge’s act of formally noting a defendant’s plea, or “entering” it, in the court’s official file. If you enter a no-contest plea, it means that, while you do not admit your guilt, you do admit the truth of the facts alleged in the indictment, information or complaint (the so-called “charging” documents that start a criminal or traffic case). No-contest pleas are sometimes know as “nolo contendere” or just “nolo” pleas. Q: So what’s the difference between pleading guilty and pleading no contest? A: Good question. Sometimes there’s no difference whatsoever and sometimes there’s a big difference. If you plead guilty, you are admitting to the facts and the legal consequences of those facts. The benefit of a no-contest plea (when you admit the facts, but not your guilt) is that it allows you to avoid a trial if your defense has become hopeless, but it prevents the plea from being used against you in any later civil or criminal proceeding. It also allows you the opportunity to appeal rulings by the court, such as rulings allowing certain evidence to be used by the government.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- "of guilty" という表現について
前置詞の直後には名詞（または、それに準ずる物）が来るのが原則ですよね。 しかし、oxford dictionary の The jury returned a verdict (= gave a verdict) of guilty. という例文にも見られるように、guilty という形容詞は、しばしば "of guilty" という形で用いられます。 これについて質問が２つあります。 ひとつめの質問は、"of guilty" を文法的にどう解釈するのが適切か？ということです。 being の省略 "of (being) guilty" かな？とも思いますが、その場合、意味上の主語（＝被告）も省略されていることになりますよね？ ふたつめの質問は、"of guilty" と同様に、前置詞＋形容詞という使われ方をする例が、ほかにありましたら、参考までに教えて頂きたいということです。 よろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- The conviction rate 99.9%
The conviction rate of the first instance in the Japanese criminal court is 99.9% (actually it is the highest conviction rate all over the world). It means that just one case of a thousand cases indicted by the Japanese public prosecutors may not be convicted in the criminal court. If it were the same around the world, we would not feel it so irrational. However, the conviction rates of the first instance in the other criminal courts are quite different. For example, it is approximately 78% in USA (of course,it is different in each state), approximately 98% in China, approximately 96% in France and approximately 90% even in the Soviet Union. Therefore, the conviction rate of the first instance in the Japanese criminal court is historically abnormal. It is presumed that the conviction rate 99.9% is far beyond even that of Nazi Germany according to overall examined information. Whoever seriously examined the conviction rate, they would regard it as definitely depending on totalitarianism. Certainly, Japan has adopted the separation of three powers. The judicial branch, administrative branch and legislative branch should have mutually been checked and balanced. However, actually, the administrative branch has ruled and controlled other two branches and decided what should be guilty or not.In this respect, according to“Why Is the Japanese Conviction Rate So High?”,written by J. Mark Ramseyer (Harvard Law School) and Eric Rasmusen (Indiana University) as follows:”Conviction rates in Japan exceed 99 percent -- why? On the one hand, because Japanese prosecutors are badly understaffed they may prosecute only their strongest cases and present judges only with the most obviously guilty defendants. On the other hand, because Japanese judges can be reassigned by the administrative office of the courts if they rule in ways the office does not like, judges may face biased career incentives to convict. Using data on the careers and opinions of 321 Japanese judges, we conclude that judges who acquit do indeed have worse careers following the acquittal. On closer examination, though, we find that the punished judges are not judges who acquitted on the ground that the prosecutors charged the wrong person. Rather, they are the judges who acquitted for reasons of statutory or constitutional interpretation, often in politically charged cases. Thus, the appearent punishment of acquitting judges seems unrelated to any pro-conviction bias at the judicial administrative offices, and the high conviction rates probably reflect low prosecutorial budgets instead.”?」（http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwple/9907001.html） By the way, the Japanese government has granted the point “Japanese prosecutors are badly understaffed they may prosecute only their strongest cases and present judges only with the most obviously guilty defendants”. The Japanese government and the public prosecutor’s office are proud of their superior prosecutors because it is regarded as being possible owing to their capacity. However, the criminal courts have only approved their decisions of guilt. It means that prosecutors actually monopolize the final decision of guilt in the criminal procedure. Also, the separation of three powers doesn’t function at all at least between prosecutors and criminal courts. This reality is quite similar to the relationship between Hitler’s government and its criminal courts in Nazi Germany. The separation of three powers between Hitler’s government and its criminal courts (the judicial branch) in Nazi Germany doesn’t function as well. In Judgment at Nuremberg, the judges of Nazi Germany have monolithically testified that they have never been informed of the atrocities of Hitler's government.Neverthless, they have finally found guilty.Similarly, the criminal procedure of Japan must be extremely risky.
- ベストアンサー
- アンケート
- 次の訳を添削してください。
法律の事を調べていたのですが、それを自分で訳してみたのですが至らない点あると思うのでお願いします。原文は「The Court of Session is the supreme civil court of Scotland. It is both a court of first instance and a court of appeal and sits exclusively in Parliament House in Edinburgh.[1]The Sheriff Court is the other Scottish civil court; this sits locally. Although the two courts have a largely co-extensive jurisdiction, with the choice of court being given in the first place to the pursuer (petitioner), the vast majority of difficult or high-value cases in Scotland are brought in the Court of Session. Legal aid, administered by the Scottish Legal Aid Board, may be available.」で訳は「民事控訴院はスコットランドの最高の民事裁判所です。それは、第一審裁判所と控訴裁判所の両方で、もっぱらエディンバラの州議事堂で位置します。[1]州裁判所は違うスコットランドの民事裁判所です;これは地方で審理します。2つの法廷は大部分は共同範囲の司法を持ちますが、追求者(請願者)にまず第1に与えられている法廷の選択で、スコットランドの額の高い困難な大分の訴訟は民事控訴院で起こされます。スコットランドの法律扶助委員会によって処理された法律扶助は利用できるかもしれません。」と訳しました。変な部分があったら、教えてください。お願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英訳をお願い致します。
Appeal by wife from a judgment of the Superior Court, DeKalb County, Judge Curtis, transferring custody of minor children from wife who was awarded custody in divorce decree to husband. The Supreme Court, Ingram, J., held that inference that wife and third-party witness were guilty of illicit conduct could be drawn from their refusal to testify as to their relationship and conduct, that evidence was insufficient to authorize change in custody, and that issue of whether court erred in denying supersedeas was moot. デキャルブ郡、高等裁判所のカーティス裁判官の判断により、妻が離婚時に得た親権を夫に移すように言われたことに対し妻は上訴した。 最高裁判所のイングラム裁判官は、妻と第三者は非道徳的行為の罪。。。。。。。 ちょっとっよくわからなくありました。 third-party witness は第三の証言者ではなく「第三者」という訳でいいでしょうか？ どうぞ、教えて下さい。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 次の文章の英訳について
宜しくお願い致します。 英語圏の人と日本人のビジネスの形態についての話です。 As a defference,it is great the defference between a superior and an inferior,for instance,a costmer and a selesclerk in Japanese business. 「異なる点としては日本のビジネスでは目上と目下例えば顧客と販売員の差が大きい」 If a salesclerk apologizes as servant to his custmer,the custmer may feel being made fun of in English business. 「英語圏のビジネスでは販売員が土下座のように誤ると顧客は却って馬鹿にされたと感じるかもしれない」 という風に英訳したのですがおかしな点がありましたらご指摘ください。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英訳の解釈があってるか見てもらえませんか？
すみません、おおざっぱです。 どなたか訳を教えて下さい。 The father's case for a change in custody is largely dependent upon proof of illicit conduct by the mother and the third-party witness affecting the welfare of the children. 親権変更を訴える父親の案件は、母親と第三者（母親の愛人、恋人）による不道徳な行いが子供の福祉に影響するという証拠が大きく影響する。 Illicit conduct of the character sought to be proved by the father against the mother in this case can be proved by circumstantial evidence. 不道徳な行いについての状況的な証拠が父親によって証明されえることができる。 If an unfavorable inference can be drawn from the refusal of the mother and third-party witness to testify to the questions concerning their alleged illicit conduct, it does furnish sufficient corroboration of the other circumstances shown by the evidence tending to prove such conduct and the trial court must be affirmed. もし、疑惑の不道徳行為を母親と恋人が立証することを拒否し好ましくない推論が引き出されたら、証拠はその様な行いを証拠づける傾向があることによって他の状況の十分な裏づけ証拠として提出される（みなされる） The mother's counsel argues vigorously that: ‘Any implication or suspicions that there (was) illicit sexual intercourse between the (mother) and the witness . . . which might have arisen because of (the mother's) refusal to answer certain questions and because of the witness' . . . refusal to answer certain questions is not legal evidence, and the refusal of a party or witness to answer certain questions under the protection afforded him by law is not an admission or is it to be considered as an admission of such conduct.’ 母親側の法廷弁護団は、精力的に「どんな予測、疑いでも不道徳な性交渉が母親と愛人にあった、 なぜなら母親が質問に答えるのを拒否するのは愛人のことがあるから。。。 質問に答えないのは法的な証拠にはならないが、母親又は愛人が質問に答えないのは保護権利があるからではあるが、それにより不道徳行為をしたとみなす。」と論じる The father, through his counsel, argues just as forcefully that the law authorized the trial court to infer, from the refusal of the mother and third-party witness to testify about the details of their relationship and conduct, that they were guilty of the illicit conduct asked about in the unanswered questions. 父親は、自身の法廷弁護団から、法律が第一審裁判所が推論。。。なんとなく意味は分かるけど。文章をどうくっつけるか分かりません。 母親と愛人が関係と行いを細かく立証することを拒否 彼らは質問を答えないことで非道徳の罪がある。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英訳お願いいたします（´∵）
すいません。どうしてもここがわかりません。どなたか手を貸していただけたら幸いです。 At the beginning of our period the code of the Poor law， as established by legislation in 1833，inspired by Chadwick and Senior，was still in operation. Its emphasis was heavily on the treatment of the pauper as less than a normal citizen，and on the avoidance of relief in the home as far as possible. From 1909，as we have seen，largely due to the work of Fabians，an entirely new approach captured the field，aiming at a practical reversal of chadwick's ideas the third declaration of policy，that embodied in the (Bevrridge) Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Social Insurance and Allied Services of 1942，although revolutionary in many respects，must properly be regarded as a logical development of the ideas which had already been made explicit in1909.
- 締切済み
- 英語
