Education of the republic of uzbekistan national university of uzbekistan named after mirzo ulugbek

1.2 DEFINITIONS OF THE TERM OF CRIMINAL LAW
The first theoretical of translation were the translators themselves who tried to generalize their own experience. Translators of ancient world discussed the issue of proximity degree to the source text. In early Bible translations or translations of other materials that were considered to be sacral and exemplary we can find word for word approach of the source text interpretation that sometimes leads to partly or even full misunderstanding of translations. That is why later translators tried theoretically approve the right of a translator for reasonable variety in subject to the source text that meant the interpretation of meaning and the impression of the source text instead of word for word coping.¹¹
Terminology is included in discourse, which encompasses, in addition to terminology, words from non-technical language not having a specific legal meaning, as well as grammatical tools, adjectives, verbs and adverbs. In this chapter, the primary focus is on legal terms, even if one can refer sometimes to non-legal terms to point out some of their relevant interactions with legal terms. The techniques vary a great deal. The sections below are devoted to the study of these different methods. This structured analysis points out not only the different ways but also the pitfalls of legal translation .
The most common type of translation of terms found in the text is literal translation of terms. It looks like a word for word translation. In transferring English law into Uzbek, in some cases, one has the impression that the concern of the translator was not to provide literal translation of term but to express the concept in the Uzbek language. In this case, the focus is not on linguistic form but on concepts.
Law is a field of knowledge and a practice which is national to some extent since it relates to the political, social, economic and cultural structure of each country. The definition of criminal law is not so simple particularly in the context of this interlingual analysis. It is commonly accepted that the uzbek counterpart of "l a w " is "huquq\qonun" . But do these two concepts strictly have the same meaning? What is sure is that both terms are polysemous and each term does not necessarily include all the semantic categories of the other. This fact may point out a difference between both systems in terms of underlying philosophical foundation. One could start with this generic definition of law by Black's Law Dictionary¹².
This definition may not necessarily be shared by all defining authorities. However, it points out some notable features of Law:
1) it is a body of rules; - u qonunlar asosi;
2) it is prescribed by an authority; - u hukumat tomonidan yoziladi;
3) it has binding force; - u ta’sir kuchiga ega;
4) it can subject citizens to sanctions or legal consequences. – u fuqarolarga sanksiya berishi va huquqiy choralar qo’llashi mumkin.
The commonly accepted adjective deriving from law is legal. This gives a sort of circular definition when this adjective is used in the definition of the concept. The question now is to determine to what extent this definition corresponds to the definition of the word “huquq” in Uzbek. Here are some characteristics of this definition:
1) a body of rules; - qonunlar asosi;
2) an organizer of life in society; - jamiyatdagi turmush tarzining tashkilotchisi;
3) the prerogative of citizens. – fuqarolarning vakolati.
The two definitions of law and huquq put an emphasis on the concept of “body of rules”. This is, of course, the reason why both words are considered as being somehow equivalent. The body of rules may differ substantially from one country to another. The law points out the authoritative force which imposes itself to the citizens. On the other hand, “huquq” points out the " p r e r o g a t i v e " deriving from law, which is not inherent to the meaning of the English word. The additionnal definition of " huquq" is in fact the original meaning of the Uzbek word. The concept of prerogative is expressed by a different word which is "right". From these two generic definitions of law and huquq, one has an idea of the field. But it is definitely more useful to discuss some characteristics of the law.
The terms and the concepts which refer to each legal system are specific to that system. If such is the case, how is it possible to transfer the law from one language to another if those two languages express the law of two different countries? The central question is therefore that of equivalency of terms. To find an answer to this question, the present study compares systematically the legal terminologies of the English and Uzbek languages.¹³
In the process of this comparison, selected bilingual legal dictionaries and legal translations are analyzed. The study is an attempt to investigate the field of transfer of the criminal law, particularly between American English and Uzbek language of Uzbekistan. Its aim is to law occupies an odd position in the field of comparative jurisprudence.
As Robert Cooter put it, criminal law exclusively imposes “sanctions” Criminal law pays much less attention to the victim's conduct. First, in criminal law, victim fault hardly ever matters. Contributory negligence is not a criminal law defense, but it is routinely taken into account in tort law. Second, the consent of the victim to the behavior of the wrongdoer, or to the risks imposed by his behavior, is much more likely to be a full defense in tort law than in criminal law.¹⁴
English is spoken in many countries. Nevertheless, in a developing complicated world, words and descriptions should be detected for new inventions and institutions. Besides, words are taken from other languages by the English scientists.
Through example, discuss a term such as "criminal law"; this term can have several definite meanings:
– the " criminal law" may betoken the law common to the whole jurisdiction as opposed to local or tacit law as well. That kind of " criminal law" was the law applied by the courts in England and the law of the sovereign. This expression of criminal law comprises regulations, statute law and impartiality. It is common to kingdom.
– it may signify the " criminal law system" as the contrary to the "civil law system". In this respect, the common law system of legal science signifies the whole system of law such as statute law, regulations, codes and impartiality that appeared in England and was later accommodated and applied in the US and countries of the former English Commonwealth. To counterbalance this, the civil law of most of European countries came from Roman Justinian Law.
– the " criminal law" may mean "case law" as well i.e. judge made law as contrary to statute law.
– the " criminal law" may be used to differ it from impartiality, too.
Criminal law includes many so-called victimless crimes, that is, crimes in which both of the immediate parties to the transaction consent, such as prostitution, gambling, and drug distribution. And consent is generally no defense to causing serious bodily injury, as opposed to minor bodily injury, in criminal law.
Historically speaking, one can occasionally read that comparative law as a serious academic discipline began as comparative criminal law, either in Germany or in France, or both. And yet, no introduction to comparative criminal law fails to point out that comparative law means, and has meant for quite some time, comparative civil law first and foremost. Textbooks on comparative law feel no need to address, or even acknowledge the existence of, comparative studies in criminal law. It’s easy to dismiss academics’ complaints about the relative, and undeserved, neglect of their subject—a condition they then set out to rectify—as an all-too familiar scholarly gripe. And yet there is something to the fact that comparative criminal law has attracted little attention, at least as compared to other types of law. The persistent peculiar parochialism of criminal law is deeply bound up with the history of criminal law itself. It is worth exploring not only for its own sake, but also in the hope of framing the challenges the criminal comparatist faces even today.
Of all branches of law, criminal law historically has been the one most closely associated with sovereignty. It’s useful to think of criminal law as having emerged from the householder’s virtually unlimited discretion to discipline members of his household. The medieval householder wielded the same disciplinary authority, to correct and to punish, over his household— including his wife, offspring, servants, and animals—for the sake of maintaining Adolf Sprudzs, ‘The International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law: A Bibliographical Status. The consolidation and centralization of power, and the eventual creation of a state, consisted of the expansion of this model of household governance from the family to the realm.¹⁵
The state prosecutes violations of criminal law. A victim's consent is neither necessary nor sufficient for a prosecution to be brought. This structural difference is sometimes given a more substantive gloss: criminal law prohibits "public" wrongs and tort law "private" wrongs. But what exactly does that mean? Part of what it means is this second point of distinction:
Criminal law is statutory. The doctrine of common-law crimes is largely defunct. At the same time, criminal and gives the victim an entitlement to compensation.
We must distinguish between the functions that an area of law performs and the underlying reasons or principles that explain and justify those functions.
Main functions of Criminal law:
1. Plaintiff obtains damages.- da’vogar yetkazilgan zararni qoplanishiga erishadi.
a. As compensation (or redress) (kompensatsiya sifatida)
b. In excess of compensation (sometimes) (ortiqcha, qo’shimcha to’lov – kompensatsiya orqali)
2. Defendant pays damages. (aybdor yetkazilgan zararni to’laydi)
a. As compensation (or redress) (kompensatsiya sifatida)
b. In excess of compensation (sometimes) (ortiqcha, qo’shimcha to’lov - kompensatsiya)
3. Deterrence of future torts (by the threat of future tort liability). (delikt bilan qo’rqitishga harakat qilish)
4. Loss-spreading. (zararni ko’payishi)
5. Reinforcement of social norms.(ijtimoiy normalarning yordamchi kuchi)
When we turn again to criminal law, again it is important to distinguish the functions of a criminal sanction from the normative principles that plausibly justify that legal remedy. And once again, these functions of criminal law merely describe what the criminal justice system does. It is an entirely separate question whether any of these functions are justifiable, or if they are, why they are.
Other functions of criminal law:
1. The state inflicts stigma on defendant.(davlat aybdorga jinoyatchilik tamg’asini bosadi)
2. The state inflicts suffering on defendant. (davlat aybdorga jazo beradi)
3. Deterrence of future crimes (by the threat of criminal sanctions).(jinoiy saksiya berish yo’li bilan qo’rqitadi)
4. The state incapacitates the defendant (sometimes). (davlat aybdorni huquqlaridan mahrum qiladi)
5. Reinforcement of social norms .(ijtimoiy normalarning yordamchi kuchi)
The normative principles that justify criminal law (again, a suggestive but nonexhaustive list) are as follows. They are parallel to the list of principles justifying criminal law law, in embracing both nonconsequentialist and consequentialist values.
Ernest Weinrib treats criminal law as a self-contained, coherent system, one that should not be altered, even if on balance no-fault or criminal law would be better for society. In a similar spirit, some think punitive damages are an alien encroachment on Criminal law.¹⁶
Law is a legislative body when considered from the perspective of s ta tu te s and also the institutions which make them. L a w is also a system of administration of justice when seen from the angle of the judicial system and its divisions in courts meant to settle disputes and deal with any other issue for the sake of justice and social order. This dimension of la w is known in Uzbek as the j u r i s p r u d e n c e “yurisprudensiya”: in a restricted sense. Law is something which is national.
That is why one can talk in terms of Uzbek law, English law, American law, Japanese law, etc. while one does not talk of Uzbek mathematics, English chemistry, or Belgian physics. It is a national entity, as it is the expression of the political, social, economic and cultural structures of a given country. The effective law which regulates a country is known as positive law as opposed to the idealistic view of law. There are many legal scholars who study the field while imparting the “yuridik madaniyat” which is useful not only to those who want to practice law but also to every human being of our contemporary time. The language of the criminal law is the natural language as it is specifically used in the field of law.
The American legal language is American English as used by lawyers. Legal Uzbek language is the Uzbek language as used by Uzbek “yuridika” . Terminology refers to vocabulary as opposed to discourse. Further specification and characterization of the language of the law appears in the terature review, particularly in the review of intralingual works.
Fletcher’s work distinguishes itself not only from other comparative, and noncomparative, criminal law scholarship in the United States, but also from much criminal law scholarship in other countries through its intellectual ambition and instrumental approach to comparative research. Fletcher’s mode of comparative scholarship recalls Feuerbach more than it does Mittermaier. In fact, Fletcher even uses a contemporary version of Feuerbach’s linguistic analogy; he compares his project to Chomsky’s search for a universal grammar. Fletcher pursues an essentially theoretical project, unattached to any particular legal system; aspects of various criminal law systems throughout the world—notably German criminal law and Anglo-American criminal law, and, to a lesser extent, French, Italian, Israeli, Russian criminal law—are pressed into service in the pursuit of a universal criminal theory.
Unlike Weigend, for instance, Fletcher does not turn to Thomas Weigend, ‘Zwischen Vorsatz und Fahrlässigkeit’, comparative analysis to address problems in domestic criminal law; foreign criminal law materials thus aren’t integrated into an underlying domestic framework.
There is no domestic law, no foreign law; there is only one criminal law, and all criminal law is comparative. In Fletcher’s work, the point of comparative criminal law is not reform, nor ornamentation; comparative criminal law serves the establishment of a ‘universal jurisprudence’, in Feuerbach’s term.¹⁷
Fletcher’s work on substantive criminal law theory fits into the comprehensive programme for a general theory of criminal law encompassing all branches of criminal law—including substantive criminal law, procedural criminal law, and the law of punishment execution and sanctions—that was eloquently sketched by Jescheck in, with obvious Feuerbachian roots:
As there is a general theory of the state and a general theory of acroeconomics, a general theory of criminal law terms also must be possible, namely one that derives not only from general philosophical preconditions, but also proceeds from empirical-comparative foundations¹⁸.
For as much as the conditions of criminality might differ from country to country, the same variables are always at issue: human conduct, the violation of legal norms and legal interests, guilt and atonement, protection and rehabilitation, juveniles, adolescents, and adults, first-time offenders and recidivists, and the great problem of the selection and design of sanctions.
Criminal law theorizing that claims independence from any domestic system of law may, in the end, say a great deal about nothing in particular as it becomes too disconnected from any single body of law to affect actual doctrine anywhere in the world. These concerns about theoretical criminal law are at least as old as Feuerbach. Feuerbach cleverly, and unusually, evaded the charge of insufficient attention to positive criminal law by creating his very own positive criminal law— the Bavarian criminal code. Not every comparatist has that luxury, if only because criminal codes are no longer drafted on royal order.
Today’s theoretical comparatist, however, can point to a body of positive law that simply did not exist in Feuerbach’s time, or for that matter, in Jescheck’s time: international criminal law. It is only fitting, then, that Fletcher recently has turned his attention to international criminal law, which he contrasts with ‘parochial’ criminal law. Criminal comparatists are hard at work assembling a ‘general part’ of international law, which attempts to draw on various legal systems and whatever little precedent there is in the field of international criminal law to create a system of general principles of criminal responsibility, in analogy to the general part of domestic criminal law and of domestic criminal codes.¹⁹
Theorists also assert that criminal law terms’ exclusive blaming function makes the question of distribution misplaced. However, in recent times, scholars have noted the many ways in which tort theory and criminal law theory overlap.
Understanding the distributive basis of criminal law term and its current popularity reveals an interesting political contradiction. Redistributive programs have historically been products of left progressive politics, engendering counter attacks from the right. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, concern over legislatures’ distributionist use of police power prompted a legal response that emphasized property rights and freedom of contract
Criminal laws terms are distributive when they mete out punishment for the primary purpose of ensuring victim welfare. A question might arise whether it is desirable or morally appropriate for the government to use criminal law to distribute pleasure to victims. Whether and to what extent criminal law should incorporate victim welfare as a consideration cannot be answered in the abstract any more than the question of what should be taxed and how much.²⁰
Criminal law terminology is a particular language in the language used by legal specialists, where a good order of simple English does not certainly make one skillful in the legal English. Legal use and practice have developed variously in each English-speaking country. Many new terms and usages from different common law legal cultures are accessible to all users of English legal language in this manner. Phrases, words as well as expressions are in an eternal state of progress. In a short period of time a word can come to be used differently as well as have a diverse meaning to the way it used to be. Immigrants in English-speaking countries come new terms.