标题: 童鞋们呐 大全第四套求解~~ [打印本页] 作者: 橙色的鱼 时间: 2011-7-17 23:45 标题: 童鞋们呐 大全第四套求解~~ 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 其实楼楼觉得AB都正确，纠结中~~ 求解释作者: 塔罗牌 时间: 2011-7-18 00:03
A不对吧 说是这个CHANGE承认OFFICER ACTING IN GOOD FAITH 原文说的是EVEN，有个转折意义在里面，就说这个CHANGE无视这个EVEN后的这些内容…… ……我也是瞎说的作者: 橙色的鱼 时间: 2011-7-18 16:57
我选的也是B,但是答案是A ...我觉得B说的比A全面一些，A只是B的一个方面。。。作者: Alexandraross 时间: 2011-7-18 17:20
是說要削減法律對犯罪分子的保護，其實文章都是在說這個rule,而constitutional rights 只是這個rule存在的一個因素而已，需要徹底解決這個問題，需要對rule進行修改。作者: 橙色的鱼 时间: 2011-7-19 15:28
感谢牛牛指点~~顿时恍然大悟了