[求助]陈向东逻辑书上的一道题

lucky_fs

题目是这样的：

   Some people assert that prosecutors should be allowed to introduce illegally obtained evidence in  criminal trials if the judge and jury can be persuaded that the arresting officers was not aware of violating or did not intend to violate the law while seizing the evidence. This proposed "good-faith exception" would weaken everyone's constitutional protection, lead to less careful police practices, and promote lying by law enforcement officers in court.

The argument above for maintaining the prohibition against illegally obtained evidence assumes that.

(A)defendants in criminal cases should enjoy greater protection from the law than other citizens do.

(B)law enforcement authorities need to be encouraged to pursue criminals assiduously.

(C)the legal system will usually find ways to ensure that real crimes do not go unprosecuted.

(D)the prohibition now deters some unlawful searches and seizures.

(E)courts should consider the motives of law enforcement officers in deciding whether evidence brought forward by the officers is admissible in a trial.

答案给的是（D）

如果按取非削弱的话一个一个来我可以找到答案，但是这样太慢。如果按正向的思路，或者说直接从段落分析要怎么思考呢？还有，这道的premise我也不是很明白。各位帮帮忙啦，谢谢啦

[此贴子已经被作者于2009-7-14 15:38:31编辑过]

xfi883

这更像一道infer题。

原文大意：

一些人认为，检察官应该引入“不合法取证”的制度，只要这种取证是建立在警察善意执法（并非故意违反法律，或没有意识到违法）的前提下即可。然而，这种"善意豁免”的建议，会对削弱公民的宪法权利，使警察办案易于疏于职守，而且会促使警官在法庭上说谎。

原文说，good-faith exception的建议，会给警察滥用职权开方便之门。

问题是：禁止good-faith exception的建议是因为______。

答案，现行的制度防止了滥用职权。