大全－Ｄ－5, 大全－Ｄ－6

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.

5.     The author of the passage above assumes all of the following EXCEPT:

(A) The constitutional rights of criminal defendants should be protected.

(B) Most cases in which the exclusionary rule has been invoked have involved purely technical violations of constitutional principles.

(C) The number of cases whose outcome has been affected by the exclusionary rule is significant.

(D) Some of the defendants set free under the exclusionary rule have been guilty of serious criminal offenses.（B）

(E) Merely technical violations of the rules concerning evidence should be treated differently from deliberate assaults upon human rights.

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

说实话，单词认识，原文看了几遍，没看懂，自然没法做题目．

请大侠们帮忙精确翻译一下，谢谢。

非侠也，班门弄斧而已，请参考指正。谢谢！

虽然排斥规则其目的是可称道的，但是这一规则禁止法庭考虑已查到的侵害被告人基本权利的证据，往往不恰当地阻挠了执法的努力。甚至有时权利侵害是微不足道的，或纯粹是技术性问题，只是按规定细节，例行公事，而非取消被告的基本权利；甚至有时很明显警官忠诚执法，但根据这一规则，他们获取的证据不足为信或不可采用。最后结果就是，真正犯罪的被告人在被释放后，还会偷盗抢掠。

兰色部分应是结论，剩余部分是补充说明。下面这句我没有把握，the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. 要请大侠们确认一下。