Questions 5-6 are based on the following.
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.
6. It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely endorse which of the following proposals?
(A) Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith
(B) A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crime
(C) A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offenses
(D) Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in court（A）
(E) A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminal
怎么推出来的阿？我是学法律的，但是遇到法律的题老做错，真是没面子！
原文说了一句turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith
作者明显表达了一种不满
而A中的Change of the exclusionary rule 就表示了对这种绝对性的改变是很有必要的
这样a就是一个比较合适的答案了吧
原文为不应该算进exclusionary rule的情况有两种：1）Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, 2）and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting
in good faith,
答案A指出情况2
而D，超出1）2）的情况下，修改exclusionary rule，作者不一定会赞同
有一项规定，在违背辩方意愿的情况下，强行取得的证据，法庭不予采信。这个法令妨碍了很多司法人员的工作。并且这个法令执行的很严格，哪怕只是细枝末节的问题，或是技术性问题，也不能犯。这导致了很多肯定有罪的犯人被无罪释放，继续为非作歹。
作者会同意以下那种说法？作者的态度是不赞成这项法案的。
A. 只要警察是诚实执法，他们的证据就应该被采信，而无论是否经过辩护人的同意。原文讲了这么多，就这个意思啊。对的。
B.应该修改宪法，去除保护被诉人的权利的部分。作者并不反对保护被告的权力,但是觉得这种方法是不对的。不对。
C.如果犯人所犯罪行较轻，就不用这个法案。作者不同意这个法案，但是并没有区分对轻罪重罪的态度。不对。
D。只要是证据，不管以什么方式取得，都应该被法庭采信。作者只是反对随便否定证据，并没有支持不择手段取证。
E. 修订宪法，允许警官在追捕“已知”罪犯的时候，用一切必要的办法，取得证据。理由同B和D。 不对。 答案是A
答案是A
答案是A
打个比方，原文说某人爱吃香蕉，下面那个选项是对的。
A。banana，当然对。
B。 所有热带水果。超范围了，不对。
C。 个头较大的香蕉。也不对，没说大小。
D。 香蕉干。喜欢吃香蕉，不等于喜欢香蕉干啊。
E。 热带水果干。同B和D。也不对。
呵呵，搞笑而已，大家不要当真。
curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crime
我以为这里some of the protections是指保护条款的一部分…… 我的阅读很成问题啊……
按GMAT的做法,出现绝对性的词"Any"一般都不用理会.
BTW,就法律工作而言,出于恶意取得的证据应该不能采信吧?
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |