B2 Crime and punishment

B2 VOCABULARY: CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

Twelve Strangers And A Van

PICTURE

(you add this)

"Suspicion is not proof."

Crimes, criminals and verbs · the police process · the trial · evidence, verdict, sentence

Reading

Speaking

A · LEAD-IN

Twelve strangers

In many countries, ordinary citizens must serve on juries.

• Would you want to? Would you try to get out of it?

• What would worry you most about deciding another person's fate?

• Would you trust twelve strangers to decide yours?

PICTURE

(you add this)

B1 · VOCABULARY

Crime, criminal, verb - complete the missing forms.

CRIME

CRIMINAL

VERB

burglary

______

break in / burgle

theft

______

______

robbery

robber

______

fraud

______

commit fraud

______

mugger

mug

vandalism

______

______

______

hacker

hack (into)

blackmail

blackmailer

______

smuggling

______

smuggle

______

kidnapper

kidnap

B2 / B3 · VOCABULARY

Fine distinctions, and the order of events

1. Which is which? stealing generally = ______ · stealing by breaking into a building = ______ · stealing using force or threat = ______ · robbery of a person in the street = ______.

2. Use: theft / robbery / burglary / mugging.

3. The process - put the stages in order: be charged · commit a crime · be questioned · the police investigate · be arrested · appear in court · the jury reaches a verdict · be sentenced (or acquitted).

4. Which two stages could reasonably swap places, depending on the case?

C · BEFORE YOU READ

Two weeks she tried to get out of

When the letter arrived, Nerea did what everyone does: she looked for a way out. She runs a small cafe, and two weeks away is real money.

READ ONCE AND ANSWER

PICTURE

1. What was the case about, and what was the verdict?

2. What surprised Nerea most about jury service?

3. First: would two weeks off work be a burden or a holiday for you?

(you add this)

C · READING

Twelve strangers and a van: my two weeks on a jury

"I'd heard the phrase all my life. Sitting there, it stopped being a phrase."

When the letter arrived, I did what everyone does: I looked for a way out. I run a small cafe; two weeks away is real money. My mother said, "You'll find it boring." My mother was wrong about almost everything.

The case was fraud - not the cinematic kind, no yachts - a man accused of selling non-existent building materials through a fake company: take the deposits, delay, dissolve, disappear. Eleven customers, one white van, and a paper trail that the prosecution unrolled like a carpet. He'd been investigated for over a year, arrested at his sister's flat, questioned for two days, and charged with fraud and theft. He denied everything. His defence was, essentially: chaos, not crime - a bad businessman, not a criminal.

Here is what surprised me first: how seriously everyone took it. Twelve of us - a plumber, a pharmacist, a student who never once removed his coat - and from the first morning we handled the word guilty like something hot. The judge told us the golden rule: suspicion is not proof. The accused doesn't have to prove innocence; the prosecution has to prove guilt, beyond reasonable doubt. I'd heard the phrase all my life. Sitting there, it stopped being a phrase.

The evidence took nine days. Witnesses - the customers, a bank investigator, the sister - and hours of documents.

C · READING (continued)

Twelve strangers and a van: my two weeks on a jury

The accused watched everything, taking notes with a pencil, and I kept catching myself studying his face for the truth, then remembering Rule One from the judge: faces are not evidence. Two customers cried. One witness was so obviously performing that the whole room quietly discounted him - juries can smell a rehearsed answer, it turns out, the way you smell rain.

The deliberation was the hardest thinking I've done as an adult. Ten of us leaned guilty by the second hour; two held out - not because they believed him, but because believing isn't the standard. Proof is.

So we went back through it: the account opened under a false name, the deposits moved the same afternoon, the "supplier" who had never existed. By the next morning it wasn't a feeling any more; it was a structure. Our verdict was unanimous: guilty of fraud, guilty of theft. When the foreman said the words, my heart was so loud I was sure the court could hear it.

The judge sentenced him three weeks later - two years and four months in prison - and I read it in the paper like everyone else, suddenly a citizen again.

People ask if I'd do it again. Tomorrow. It's the most serious room I've ever sat in, and the most human: twelve strangers, trying - actually trying - to be fair. My mother asked what it was like. I said: it's the only fortnight of my life when I was certain the thing I was doing mattered. She said, "So, boring." Some verdicts you don't appeal.

D · COMPREHENSION

Number the events 1-8 in the order they happened.

1. ______ The jury reached a unanimous verdict.

2. ______ The man was arrested at his sister's flat.

3. ______ The judge passed sentence.

4. ______ The police investigated for over a year.

5. ______ Witnesses gave evidence over nine days.

6. ______ He was charged with fraud and theft.

7. ______ Deliberation began, with two jurors initially unconvinced.

8. ______ Customers paid deposits to a fake company.

E · LANGUAGE FOCUS

The passive chain, the cast, and the collocations

1. Complete from the text: he was ______ for over a year -> ______ at his sister's flat -> ______ for two days -> ______ with fraud and theft -> and finally ______ to two years and four months. Why is the passive so natural here - who matters, the doers or the done-to?

2. The cast and props. Find: the person who runs the trial (______) · the twelve (______) · the people who tell what they saw (______) · what they produce collectively (a ______) · the materials shown in court (______) · the higher standard the judge insists on (______, not suspicion).

3. Distinguish: guilty and innocent · convicted and acquitted · evidence and proof. The two jurors held out - were they claiming he was innocent?

4. Collocations: commit · reach · give · serve · pass + a crime · a verdict · evidence · on a jury · sentence. Which goes with which?

F1 · CONTROLLED PRACTICE

Name the crime - and, where asked, the criminal.

1. Someone got into the company's computer system and copied client data. Crime: ______; criminal: ______.

2. She threatened to publish the photos unless he paid her. Crime: ______.

3. They took the CEO and demanded money for his return. Crime: ______; criminal: ______.

4. He offered the inspector cash to ignore the safety report. Crime: ______.

5. Someone spray-painted the new library on opening night. Crime: ______; criminal: ______.

6. A man with a knife demanded her phone in the underpass. Crime: ______; criminal: ______.

7. Cigarettes hidden in the door panels at the border. Crime: ______.

8. He followed the actress for months, photographing her house. Crime: ______; criminal: ______.

F2 · CONTROLLED PRACTICE

Complete the news report.

Use: arrested · charged · court · evidence · guilty · investigated · jury · questioned · sentenced · verdict · witnesses.

1. Police ______ the case for six months before the suspect was ______ at his home and ______ for 48 hours.

2. He was ______ with fraud and appeared in ______ in May.

3. Fourteen ______ gave ______ over two weeks.

4. The ______ took just four hours to reach their ______: ______ on all charges. The judge ______ him to three years.

G · FREER PRACTICE

The deliberation

The class is the jury for a one-paragraph case your teacher invents - white-collar and deliberately ambiguous (e.g. a manager is accused of "borrowing" the office charity fund and repaying it).

• In groups of four, deliberate for five minutes and reach a verdict, using the standard correctly: There's evidence that..., but is it proof? · Suspicion isn't enough · I'd acquit / convict because...

• Each group's foreman announces the verdict and the single piece of evidence that decided it. Did all the juries agree?

• Discussion: should juries of ordinary citizens decide serious cases, or should professional judges do it alone?

• Homework (optional): write the local paper's 100-word report of the van-fraud trial: strictly factual, correctly sequenced, twelve target items, no adjectives you couldn't defend in court.

PICTURE

(you add this)

TEACHER'S REFERENCE · HIDE OR DELETE BEFORE CLASS

Answer key

B1 burglar · thief / steal · rob · fraudster · mugging · vandal / vandalize · hacking · blackmail (the verb is the same word) · smuggler · kidnapping.

B2 theft (general) · burglary (breaking into a building) · robbery (using force or threat) · mugging (robbery in the street).

B3 commit a crime -> the police investigate -> be arrested -> be questioned -> be charged -> appear in court -> the jury reaches a verdict -> be sentenced or acquitted. Arrest and question can swap depending on the case.

C GIST A fake-building-materials fraud; a unanimous guilty verdict on both counts, and two years four months in prison. The surprises: how seriously the jury took it, the real weight of "beyond reasonable doubt", and the fact that faces are not evidence.

D Deposits paid to the fake company 1 · police investigated 2 · arrested at his sister's flat 3 · charged 4 · witnesses gave evidence 5 · deliberation with two holdouts 6 · unanimous verdict 7 · sentence passed 8.

E 1 investigated -> arrested -> questioned -> charged -> sentenced. The passive keeps the accused in focus; the individual officers don't matter. 2 judge · jury · witnesses · verdict · evidence · proof. 3 No - they were holding the standard, not asserting innocence. Acquitted = found not guilty, which is not the same as proven innocent. 4 commit a crime · reach a verdict · give evidence · serve on a jury · pass sentence.

F1 1 hacking / a hacker · 2 blackmail · 3 kidnapping / kidnappers · 4 bribery · 5 vandalism / a vandal · 6 mugging (robbery) / a mugger · 7 smuggling · 8 stalking / a stalker.

F2 investigated / arrested / questioned / charged / court / witnesses / evidence / jury / verdict / guilty / sentenced.