Barbora Tite (X) Mar 8, 2013:

:)

Hannah Geiger (X) Mar 8, 2013:

Ale ne, akorát nejsem tak discrétní a neříkám tomu 'new meaning', jako ty dneska.

jankaisler Mar 8, 2013:

Hannah, ty jsi trefila do černého!! - Dr. Šámal z NS ...

Pavel Prudký Mar 8, 2013:

Like to Hannah :-)

Hannah Geiger (X) Mar 8, 2013:

Mám dojem, že největším pachatelem je zde ten, co to nazval nadržování.

Barbora Tite (X) Mar 8, 2013:

Hmmm. So what do we do here? I guess a lengthy description is the only way? Does anyone here have a different comparative Czech-English resource for legal stuff? I still maintain that Chromá's dictionary is helpful but it would be good to have something to cross-check it with.

jankaisler Mar 8, 2013:

The problem is following: The lawmaker used in Czech Criminal Code 40/2009 Coll. in § 366 the term "nadržování" for specified crime. I guess we all know the original meaning of the term ""nadržování" - doing favours, granting advantages/benefits/privileges there where should the equal treatment be rule, i. e. in official procedures. § 366 brings new meaning of the term ""nadržování" - (some person) helping suspect or sentenced criminal to avoid prosecution or serving his sentence in jail. None of the presented proposals (including my one - in the meantime hidden - "favourism") corresponds the definition included in § 366. Maybe there is no such crime in Anglo-Saxon law systems. M. Chromá is not right in this case.

Barbora Tite (X) Mar 7, 2013:

Personal comments aside, legal translation is not about being confident or "feeling" things. It basically boils down to which dictionary or other terminology source is the most trustworthy for you and if you can provide a definition. That's all.

Rad Graban (X) Mar 7, 2013:

Well... ...if you are confident enough that the punishment for 'abetting' should be the same as punishment for 'nadržování', I rest my case. I wouldn't like you to translate my legal papers. (No offence.)

Barbora Tite (X) Mar 7, 2013:

Well. The fact that something doesn't "make sense" to you or me or anyone else in this discussion doesn't mean it's automatically a wrong choice. It's a legal text, not a commercial. Its primary aim is to be precise, not crystal clear to an ordinary person (alas!). I mean when I read a Czech legal text, I can't say that I understand everything in it, that's normal. That's also why we have these discussions here.

I would certainly avoid "going for the closest cultural equvalent" because it might not really be close enough and then it's worse than "doesn't make sense" because the reader will be soothed into thinking they know this legal notion, while it may be something quite different. So I'd definitely go straight to the descriptive method.

So based on that, what do you suggest as a solution here?

Rad Graban (X) Mar 7, 2013:

Czech-English Legal Dictionaries What's the point to rely on them (e.g. Chroma) if they don't make sense to English speakers????? See my previous post.

Rad Graban (X) Mar 7, 2013:

As I see it... In legal translation, if there is no direct equivalent, you go for the closest cultural equivalent first. If you can't find one, you look for other options including description (translator's note, etc.). "Abet" doesn't fit anywhere.

Barbora Tite (X) Mar 7, 2013:

What the Czech-English legal dictionary says: "nadržování jedné straně procesu"= "favouritism for a party to a case"
X
"spolupachatelství zahrnuje podněcování, schvalování, NADRŽOVÁNÍ, nepřekážení nebo neoznámení trestného činu" = "complicity includes inciting, encouraging, abetting, failure to prevent and failure to report a crime".

Of course abetting may mean something slightly different in the UK, US or Canadian legal system. However, we are speaking of the Czech system here, as Hannah has rightfully pointed out, so I would primarily turn to the CS-EN legal dictionary and then to other dictionaries.

jankaisler Mar 7, 2013:

Toto "Dále jsem byl policistou .... poučen podle § 345 tr. zákoníku o následcích křivého obvinění, rovněž mi byly objasněny skutkové podstaty trestných činů pomluvy, poškození cizích práv a nadržování podle § 184, § 181 and § 366 tr. zákoníku." je citace z poučení osoby podávající oznámení/svědka v rámci přípravného řízení prováděného policií ...

Hannah Geiger (X) Mar 7, 2013:

to Dylan I would suggest that you take the Section 366, cited above, attempt to translate it yourself, and see which of the terms on the board here it comes closest to.

Hannah Geiger (X) Mar 7, 2013:

I have no idea why here we have to turn to any other law but the Czech law, however. Can you please tell me why, I am serious.

Rad Graban (X) Mar 7, 2013:

Accessory (after the act)... ...could be probably another option but it's not used in the UK these days anymore. I understand "nadržování" as helping/supporting a person already arrested/charged with a crime.
http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/accessory.ht...

Hannah Geiger (X) Mar 7, 2013:

I am sorry, but it can at least be translated in the sense of 'assistance', the text directly mentions 366, why do you feel this is favouritism, which, IMO, has a totally different meaning, and especially for someone who is the imprisoned, not the imprisoning, person. This is a question, not a statement.

jankaisler Mar 7, 2013:

to abet = podněcovat/(na-)pomáhat spáchání trestného činu - různé slovníky; to s "nadržováním" nemá nic společného

TrZ § 24 Účastník
(1) Účastníkem na dokonaném trestném činu nebo jeho pokusu je, kdo úmyslně
a) spáchání trestného činu zosnoval nebo řídil (organizátor),
b) vzbudil v jiném rozhodnutí spáchat trestný čin (návodce), nebo
c) umožnil nebo usnadnil jinému spáchání trestného činu, zejména opatřením prostředků, odstraněním překážek, vylákáním poškozeného na místo činu, hlídáním při činu, radou, utvrzováním v předsevzetí nebo slibem přispět po trestném činu (pomocník)."

Barbora Tite (X) Mar 7, 2013:

Díky za zpřesnění Honzo, vypadá to tedy pouze na abetting.

jankaisler Mar 7, 2013:

Skutková podstata "nadržování" dle § 366 TrZ nespočívá v "pomoci ke spáchání trestného činu" nýbrž k tomu "aby (pachatel) unikl trestnímu stíhání, trestu nebo ochrannému opatření nebo jejich výkonu" - to jsou dva zcela odlišné trestné činy, viz citaci § 366 Nadržování níže, kterou uvedla Hannah.
"In Canada, a person who aids or abets in the commission of a crime is treated the same as a principal offender under the criminal law. Section 21(1) of the Criminal Code" - čili je nápomocna při spáchání tr. č.
"Aiding and abetting is an additional provision in United States criminal law, for situations where it cannot be shown the party personally carried out the criminal offense, but where another person may have carried out the illegal act(s) as an agent of the charged, working together with or under the direction of the charged party, who is an accessory to the crime."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting

Hannah Geiger (X) Mar 7, 2013:

it is itemized in words and in section numbers, i.e. poškození cizích práv is 181, nadržování is section 366, you can check the Act here
http://business.center.cz/business/pravo/zakony/trestni-zako...

Hannah Geiger (X) Mar 7, 2013:

§ 366 Nadržování
(1) Kdo pachateli trestného činu pomáhá v úmyslu umožnit mu, aby unikl trestnímu stíhání, trestu nebo ochrannému opatření nebo jejich výkonu, bude potrestán odnětím svobody až na čtyři léta; pomáhá-li však takto pachateli trestného činu, na který trestní zákon stanoví trest mírnější, bude potrestán oním trestem mírnějším.

Dylan Edwards (asker) Mar 7, 2013:

Thanks for the prompt answers. I was aware of the "favourable/preferential treatment" meaning but also, in one dictionary, I found "abetting". I'd be interested to know if there's a consensus on what it means here. Haven't had time to look up the relevant law...