關於 in consideration of法律 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

[時事英文] The Death Penalty

剛剛看完大家熱烈討論的《我們與惡的距離》The World Between Us 覺得學到不少東西，劇情也直接挑戰大眾對死刑和相關議題的看法。好，點到為止，我就不透漏劇情了。

以下是我編寫關於死刑的一篇文章。無論大家觀點如何，希望以下提供的一些資訊可以幫同學學習英文，關心社會大事及更了解此議題。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

錄音檔: http://bit.ly/2vh27ph

★★★★★★★★★★★★

以下老師提供執行死刑的支持和反對的論點的相關的英文單字及文章，目的是希望幫助各位不論是在英文口試上更得心應手，另外了解正反兩方的觀點也才能讓各位的辯證更有說服力。

時事詞彙:

pros and cons 利弊
capital punishment/the death penalty 死刑
retribution 應報
state power 國家公權力
deprive…of their right to live 剝奪…生命權
separate them from society 使其永久與社會隔離
the abolition of the death penalty 廢除死刑
do away with 除去；廢除
concepts of law and order 法治觀念
popular consensus and support 民眾之共識與支持
opinion polls 民意調查
respondents 受訪者
complementary measures 相關配套措施
increase upper sentencing limits 提高有期徒刑上限
the threshold for parole for life imprisonment 無期徒刑假釋門檻
amendments 法律修正案
human rights protection 人權之保障
maintaining public security 治安之維護
cruel, inhumane 殘酷, 不人道
on death row 在死刑名單上
administer the death penalty 執行死刑
approve all executions 批准處決
method of execution 行刑方式
hanging 絞刑
retain the death penalty 維持死刑
carry out death penalty 執行死刑
a deterrent to crime or extremism 遏止犯罪或極端主義
lethal injection 致命注射
appeal 上訴; 請求
Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty 台灣廢死聯盟

★★★★★★★★★★★★

Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty 死刑的利與弊

★★★★★★★★★★★★

Arguments commonly made for supporting the death penalty are:

一般常會被用來支持死刑應該存在的論點如下:

1. To serve as an example to other would-be criminals, to deter them from committing murder or terrorist acts.

會對那些相當可能犯案的潛在罪犯產生警示的作用，並阻止他們犯下任何謀殺或恐怖行為。

2. To punish the criminal for his/her act.

由於他們的犯罪行為，給予懲罰。

3. To obtain retribution on behalf of the victims.

基於受害者的權益，罪犯應當得到相對的懲罰。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

Arguments Against 反駁論點

Arguments commonly made to abolish the death penalty are:

一般常會被用來支持死刑應該被廢除的論點如下:

1. Death constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment" and the various means used by the state to kill a criminal are cruel.

死刑的構成其實是殘暴而且不尋常的處罰，再者，目前國家執行死刑的方式，有很多都是非常殘忍的。

2. The death penalty is used disproportionately against the poor, who cannot afford expensive legal counsel, as well as against racial, ethnic and religious minorities.

相對於金字塔頂端的富人，由於那些貧窮的社會階層根本負擔不起昂貴的律師費用，死刑的執行對於他們而言，完全不成比例，另一方面，其實那些種族、少數民族和宗教等弱勢團體也面臨著類似的問題。

3. Wrongly convicted, innocent people have received death penalty sentences, and tragically, were killed by the state.

法律上誤判的狀況，也會導致無辜的人們被判處死刑，因而不幸地被國家殺害。

4. A rehabilitated criminal can make a morally valuable contribution to society.

一位改過自新的罪犯，其實也能就道德層面當中，對這個社會有一些難能可貴的貢獻。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

English and Chinese Script:

The death penalty, with its basis in the theory of retribution, uses state power to deprive convicted criminals of their right to live and separate them from society forever. Since capital punishment is cruel and goes against the notion that punishment should encompass education, the abolition of the death penalty has gradually become a global trend. Many democratic and industrialized countries have completely or conditionally abolished the death penalty.

死刑起源於報應主義，係以國家公權力剝奪罪犯生命權，使其永久與社會隔離，由於手段殘酷，不符刑罰亦具教化之主張，故廢除死刑已漸是世界潮流，許多民主先進國家已廢除死刑或有條件的廢除死刑。

Whether to completely do away with the death penalty depends on the development of society, the maturity of concepts of law and order and popular consensus and support. In opinion polls in recent years, around 80% of respondents have consistently opposed the abolition of the death penalty. Opposition falls to 40% however if complementary measures such as increases in upper sentencing limits and the threshold for parole for life imprisonment are included.

惟是否全面廢除死刑，應視社會發展、法治觀念是否成熟及民眾之共識與支持。根據歷年來所做之相關民意調查，民眾對我國廢止死刑之意見，始終約有百分之八十的受訪者表示反對。但如有相關配套措施，例如提高有期徒刑上限、無期徒刑假釋門檻等，反對意見則約下降至百分之四十。

Evidently, with consideration of complementary measures and education, public support for retribution may be reoriented and a general consensus formed on the gradual abolition of the death penalty.

可見如有配套措施，並透過教育導正民眾報復思想，應可逐步凝聚廢除死刑之社會共識。

The Ministry of Justice will employ extensive discussion and research to form a popular consensus for abolition, and only then propose the necessary amendments to existing laws to extend human rights protection while maintaining public security.

法務部將會透過廣泛討論與研究，凝聚多數民眾支持廢除死刑之共識後，才會提出廢除死刑的法律修正案，以兼顧人權之保障及治安之維護。

★★★★★★★★★★★★

Article source: 中華民國法務部有關廢除死刑之政策
http://www.moj.gov.tw/fp.asp?xItem=26742&ctNode=28252

Image source: https://opinion.udn.com/opinion/story/10043/3613790

★★★★★★★★★★★★

時事英文: https://bit.ly/2Gtsduy

【專題訪問 Interview Feature】2019年度香港大學學生會周年大選中央幹事會候選内閣蒼傲訪問（外務篇） | Interview with Prism, the Proposed Cabinet of Executive Committee, The Hong Kong University Students’ Union of Annual Election 2019 (External Affairs)

(Please scroll down for English version.)

中央幹事會候選內閣蒼傲就外務議題接受本台訪問，就不同外務議題立場，包括不反對政府取締民族黨的原因、相信政府DQ議員合法的理據、初一事件有黑幫介入的看法、及對法律制度有信心的理由等發表意見。

訪問節錄如下：

1. 你們的政治光譜/政治立場是甚麼？
我們認為用現有的名詞並不能表達我們莊的政治立場，因為例如本土、港獨等，第一他們並沒有清晰的界定，或是社會一致的定義，我們都認為不論是政治光譜或是政治立場我們作為香港人或是香港接受教育的人，其實我們的立場都會傾向由香港出發。但由香港出發去考慮香港利益時，我們都要考慮時間軸。時間軸的意思是，我們到底在考慮短期還是長期的利益。加上香港的地理位置、經濟結構其實都十分依賴世界上大部份的國家，不論金融、出口產業，所以在考慮香港利益同時，我們都應考慮鄰近國家的政策、議案的推出。所以如果要用幾個字去形容我們的政治立場，我們會選擇「國際視野，本土出發」八個字。前者是考想利益的角度,後者是執行的角度。

2. 你們是否支持香港獨立？
首先我們認為它可以被自由地討論，特別是在大學之內。至於是否贊成香港獨立方面，港獨並非香港現時可執行最好的決策，因為尚有很多的選擇可加以考慮及討論。另外我認為香港內部的問題都非常嚴峻，例如我們在政綱小册子上提到的外務議題，如學生自殺、高樓價、創新科技嚴重落後等問題。這些都是我們內部必須解決和面對的問題，所以我們會將那些內部問題列為最優先需要處理的問題。

3. 你們覺得香港獨立是否合法？
我們認為任何符合法例的討論都是可被接受的，所以我們認為只要某個人或團體在現時完善的法律制度下，加上沒有違反法律，就應可就不同議題提出想法。

4. 你們是否同意香港政府取締香港民族黨？
首先我們相信香港的法治仍然相當完善，所以就香港一套完整司法制度體系下做出的判決，我們並沒有太多質疑或反對。對於民族黨被政府取締或禁止，社會上有不同聲音，但我們相信我們應遵守絕大部分香港市民都認同是完善的法律體系下作出的任何決策。

5. 你們是否同意香港政府DQ議員？
其實我們由始至終都相信，而坊間一些調查機構都指出香港的法治制度在世界上都名列前茅，所以我們相信這套法治制度可以帶來公平的審訊，所以對於有部分議員被DQ，我們願意相信整個判決過程是公平的，並且有足夠理據去支持政府所作的判決，所以我們對這件事沒有任何特別意見。

6. 你們是否支持人大釋法？
每一個法律的訂立，其實都是由一小部分的精英去開始建構框架，然後隨社會的進步不斷完善。所以法律並非一本已經印刷好的書，而是容許我們不斷修改、去完善，就一些前人的不足作補完。人大釋法亦都如是，我相信重點是我們希望這法列在微調後能得到愈來愈多香港人的支持，這才是一個成功的新詮釋。

7. 你們是否同意一國兩制？
我們支持所有在香港回歸時所簽訂的條文，其中當然包括一國兩制。

8. 你們是否支持國歌法和23條立法？
因為爭議聲非常之多，所以我們不希望對任何未實施或未明文規定的法例作出過多評論。這是對該法案有所偏頗，該法案到最後還有很多相議的空間，所以我們認為政府應充分考慮各種聲音，從而推出一條為大部分港人所接受的法例。

9. 你們對違法達義有何看法？
香港作為擁有完善法律的城市，任何人都有表達訴求或是行動的權利。我們主張每人都有自由去決定自己的事、想表達的聲音，但每人都應為這些行為勇敢承擔相認的法律責任。當然我們更相信這套法律體系是完善和公平的。

10. 你們對初一事件有何看法？
對旺角騷動，很多報紙傳媒都報道了有不法份子甚至黑社會的介入，所以旺角騷動的那一批示威者是否單純為表達而表達的市民呢？

11. 你們是否同意政府以暴動罪控告參與者？
就對這幾名人士進行拘捕的行為，我們希望香港政府有真憑實據去支持，以及整個審訊過程認該要公平。我希望他們得到公平的審訊。

Campus TV has interviewed with Prism, the Proposed Cabinet of Executive Committee, The Hong Kong University Students’ Union, Session 2019, with regards to their treatment of external affairs. Prism has expressed their stance and opinions on various external issues, which include: their not opposing the Hong Kong government’s banning of the Hong Kong National Party, believing in the government’s legitimacy for the disqualification of legislators, believing in the involvement of gangs in the Mong Kok Incident of 2016, and expressing their confidence in the current legal system.

The interview excerpts are as follows:

1. Where do you stand on the political spectrum? / How would you define your political stance?
We believe the current word items are unable to express our Cabinet’s political stance. For example, if you consider the term localism or Hong Kong independence, these groups have not a clear boundary or universal definition given by the society. Whether it be the political spectrum or political stance, us who are Hong Kong-ers or who have been educated in Hong Kong, have a tendency to think from the standpoint of Hong Kong. If we consider the benefits from the standpoint of Hong Kong, we also need to consider the timeline. This (the timeline) means, that we should consider if these benefits are of short term or long term. Therefore, when considering Hong Kong’s benefits, we should also consider the policies and bills of neighbouring countries. Therefore, if we had to define our political stance in terms, it would be “international perspective that comes from a local standpoint”. The former is a consideration to the benefits, the latter is a consideration to the execution.

2. Do you support Hong Kong independence?
Firstly, we think this matter could be discussed freely, especially within the premises of the University. In terms of agreeing with Hong Kong independence, we think that Hong Kong independence is currently not the best option to be executed in Hong Kong, because there are still many other options to consider and discuss about. In addition, I think that Hong Kong’s internal affairs are very severe, like the external affairs that are mentioned in our campaign booklet, for example, students’ suicides, rising property prices, the severely outdated innovation and technology. These are problems that our internal department has to confront and resolve, therefore we put these internal affairs as our priority.

3. Do you think that Hong Kong independence is legal?
We believe any discussion that is in compliance with the law is acceptable. Therefore, we think that under the current, comprehensive legal system, with no breaching of the law, a person or group should be allowed to speak their thoughts on different issues.

4. Do you agree with Hong Kong government’s banning of the Hong Kong National Party?
Firstly, we believe that Hong Kong’s rule of law is still quite comprehensive. Therefore, we do not have much hesitation nor opposition for a judgment that is based on what we consider to be an intact judicial system of Hong Kong. In terms of the banning of the Hong Kong National Party, the society has different voices, but we believe we ought to obey the judgment that comes from what the majority of Hong Kong considers to be a comprehensive legal system.

5. Do you agree with Hong Kong government’s disqualification of legislators?
Actually, we have since the very beginning believed in Hong Kong’s rule of law as quite a frontrunner in the world; this has been backed by some survey organisations within the community too, so we believe that this rule of law can bring out a fair trial. Therefore, in regards to the disqualification of some legislators, we willingly believe that the entirety of the judgment process has been fair, with sufficient arguments to back up the government’s verdict. We do not express any special opinions towards this incident.

6. Do you support the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress’ Interpretation of the Basic Law (SCNPC's Interpretation of BL, or Interpretation of the Basic Law by the SCNPC)?
For the enactment of every legislation, it starts from a small portion of elites that begin to build its (the legislation’s) framework, it then continues to be improved as society grows. For this reason, the law is not a printed book, it allows us to continually amend, better, and complete items that are left neglected or faulted by predecessors. This applies for the SCNPC's Interpretation of BL, I believe the most important thing is, we hope to gain more Hong Kong-ers’ support under these fine-tunings (by the SCNPC's Interpretation of BL), we think this is what counts as a successful re-interpretation of the law.

7. Do you agree with the constitutional principle of “one country, two systems”?
We support all the terms that were signed in the Handover of Hong Kong, and this definitely includes the principle of “one country, two systems”.

8. Do you support the National Anthem Bill and the enactment of Article 23?
Due to the many controversies on this matter, we do not wish to comment on any legislation that has yet to be implemented or stipulated in explicit terms. This would be a prejudice on the said bill(s). These bills still have a lot of room for negotiation, so we believe the government should consider different voices, so as to introduce a legislation that is accepted by the majority of Hong Kong-ers.

9. What are your views on the idea of achieving justice by violating the law?
Hong Kong is a city with a comprehensive legal system; anyone has the right to express their own appeal or action. We advocate that everyone has the freedom to decide for their own deeds and express their own thoughts, but everyone should also be responsible to bear the consequences of their actions. Needless to say, we definitely believe that our legal system is perfect and fair.

10. What are your views on the Mong Kok Incident in 2016?
With regards to the Mong Kok unrest, many media sources have reported about the involvement of many illegal parties, and even that of gangs or triads. So, are the demonstrators in the Mong Kok unrest really with pure intentions to speak up, for the sake of expressing themselves as Hong Kong citizens?

11. Do you agree with the government’s decision to charge participants (of the Mong Kok Incident in 2016) with the offence of rioting?
With regards to the arrest of those participants, we hope that the Hong Kong government has had solid evidence to support (their arrest), and that the trial process has been fair. I hope they receive a fair trial.
___________________________________

二零一九年度香港大學學生會周年大選其他候選人包括候選常務秘書麥嘉晉、校園電視候選內閣、學苑候選編輯委員會及候選普選評議員。

2019年度周年大選中央諮詢大會將於一月二十一日至一月二十五日在中山廣場舉行，時間為下午十二時半至二時半。

Other candidates for the Annual Election 2019 include the Proposed General Secretary Mak Ka Chun Eugene, the Proposed Cabinet of Campus TV, the Proposed Editorial Board of Undergrad, and the Proposed Popularly Elected Union Councillor.

The Central Campaign for Annual Election 2019 will be held from the 21st to 25th of January at the Sun Yat-sen Place, from 12:30 to 14:30.

#入境處的決定孤立香港
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2016730241773583&id=100003098798613

根據香港入境處的《一般就業政策》，「具備香港特別行政區所需而又缺乏的特別技能、知識或經驗」的申請人，在滿足其他條件（包括其「從事的工作 ... 不能輕易覓得本地人擔任」）後，可申請來港工作。[1]
　
但好明顯入境處就無睇過Epoch Group Ltd v Director of Immigration [2011] 3 HKLRD H2案。
　
時任原訟法庭法官張舉能在該案中指出[2]，通常用以審批工作簽證的《一般就業政策》並．不．適．用．於[3]有意到訪香港進行短時間表演的演藝團體。
　
換言之，就這類團體的成員的工作簽證申請而言，他們是否「具備香港所需而又缺乏的特別技能、知識或經驗 (special skills, knowledge or experience of value to and not readily available in Hong Kong)」，或他們的工作能否「輕易覓得本地人擔任 (readily taken up by the local work force)」，已非入境處可以合法地納入的考慮[4]，否則香港永遠也有本地人才，根本不可能舉辦任何國際性的文化交流活動[5]。
　
相反地，入境處在決定是否批准簽證申請時，法律上真正須要考慮並給予極大比重的因素，其實是[6]：
　
1) 外地團體到香港進行文化或藝術交流活動對社會的重大價值；

2）到訪演藝團體的成員不是長期來港「搶人工作」，而是特地為了參加文化或藝術交流活動，短時間內就會離開香港；

3）入境處尤其必須以「演藝團體是不可分割的個體」為基礎考慮簽證申請，若對個別成員作區別對待，在法律上即屬不合理（外地著名的演藝團體大概也不會願意接受這種只有個別成員獲准出席的無理邀請[7]）。
　
根據入境處的信件，他們決定拒絕簽證申請，是因為認為申請者無法滿足上述已被法庭裁定為不相關的標準，但從無考慮法律上真正有關、並支持批出簽證的因素，即使背後沒有政治動機，亦無疑是行政法意義下一個越權、非法的決定。
　
　
　
　
[1] 如參見保安局局長於十月二十四日在立法會會議上就梁繼昌議員的提問所作的書面答覆：https://www.info.gov.hk/…/gen…/201810/24/P2018102400453p.htm

[2] 入境處處長當時亦確認他們實際上不會強行應用《一般就業政策》來處理此類簽證申請：參見第45段。

[3] 第42段（'ill-suited'）。

[4] 參見第43-44、50、52、60、62、68段。

[5] 參見第57段。

[6] 參見第49-50、57、62、64段。

[7] 參見第54段。

原圖來自：HOCC專頁

https://www.facebook.com/…/a.1015339726…/10161314509780230/…
　
　
　
(English version)

Under the Director of immigration's General Employment Policy, '[a]pplicants who possess special skills, knowledge or experience of value to and not readily available in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) may apply to come to work in the HKSAR', if they can satisfy the Direcotor that, amongst other conditions, the job concerned 'cannot be readily taken up by the local work force'.[1]
　
The Policy's application in the present case, however, is so completely at odds with Epoch Group Ltd v Director of Immigration [2011] 3 HKLRD H2.
　
There, Andrew Cheung J (as Cheung PJ then was) was clear[2] that the General Employment Policy, as otherwise usually applies to work visa applications, was 'ILL-SUITED to deal with applications for entry by members of a travelling performing group to perform in Hong Kong for a short duration only'[3].
　
In other words, in respect of applications by members of such a group, the questions whether they 'possess special skills, knowledge or experience of value to and not readily available in Hong Kong', or whether the job or tasks they propose to perform can be 'readily taken up by the local work force', are matters irrelevant to the Director's inquiry [4], for otherwise the happy wealth of local talent could ironically have the absurd effect of preventing the possibility of any international cultural events in the first place[5].
　
By contrast, in determining whether to allow such an application for a work visa, what the Director must take into account, and give substantial weight to, are the following factors[6]：
　
1) the unmistakable value of international cultural and artistic exchanges and activities to (the) society (of Hong Kong);

2) members of such a travelling performing group do not seek to remain in Hong Kong permanently, and therefore are unlikely to significantly (if at all) jeopardise the job opportunities of local workers; rather they are seeking entry for the specific purpose of attending international cultural and artistic exchanges and activities, for a short period of time after which they are expected to leave the city;

3) in particular, the Direct must consider the visa applications bearing in mind that a performing group is an inalienable entity, each member being integral to the group; discrimination against individual members is liable to be found unreasonable (and chances are that travelling performing groups of any reputation would not be prepared to accept invitations unreasonably extended only to certain of their members but not the others[7]）。
　
The reason for refusing the visa application, as stated in the Director's letter, is that the applicant did not meet the very irrelevant criteria which, as shown, have been judicially deprecated insofar as they were applied to a travelling performing group, in circumstances indistinguishable from those in the instant case. On the other hand, the Director never gave any consideration at all to the relevant factors (all pointing to a favourable determination of the application) which he, in law, must consider. It follows that, even stripped of its political overtones, the Director's decision is one that is ultra vires and illegal according to the ordinary principles of administrative law.
　
　
　
　
[1] See eg the written reply by the Secretary for Security in the Legislative Council on 24 October 2018 to the Hon Kenneth Leung: https://www.info.gov.hk/…/gen…/201810/24/P2018102400458.htm…

[2] And the Director of Immigration conceded as much at the time, that it had never been his practice to rigidly apply the Policy to travelling performing groups of this sort: see para 45.

[3] At para 42 (emphasis added).

[4] At paras 43-44、50、52、60、62、68.

[5] See para 57.

[6] See paras 49-50、57、62、64.

[7] See para 54.