大全-d-5

ztlbox

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.

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.

这里的assume不是我们通常说的假设吧？b和原文并不矛盾啊，他说的是most,没说all.

c说的是数量，这种案件的多少并不影响它的和理性呀。

请帮忙解答，谢谢。

lawyer_1

原文的结论是： exclusionary rule已阻止法律的实施。证据是在minor or purely technical one，acting in good faith情况下，放走了犯人。C说受 exclusionary rule影响的案件数量是很明显的，有影响作用的（SIGNIFICANT）。排除受该原则影响嘚案件不明显的可能性，故为假设。B说该原则影响的多数案件仅仅技术上违反宪法原则，这或者是无关，或者是WEAKEN结论，因为原文说该于那则是对的因为违反宪法权利，结论是说该原则不好。B是人为该原则好。因为原文是说宪法权利，B说宪法原则，所以也可以说无关。

gonghao

lawyer的解释挺难懂的，在体会体会了

jdmg

A is negated, there's no need to talk about whether the police man's beheavior is justified for good will or not, because they can do anything. for C/D, if the effects of the rule are minor, it can be said that it doesn't hamper the justice, so be  Negative to CONCLUSION. E, negate: there are other violations should be identified, so the rule will be necessary

zxzhyzcy

斗胆发表自己的看法……请指正！

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,

而B说most cases have involved presly technical violations，实际上对它取非的话，就算很多cases不是technical violations的问题，而只是good faith的问题，原文的结论the exclousionary tule hampered lao=enforcement efforts也是可以成立的

这样想是对的吗？

ssl507

同意楼上

zjflora

以下是引用ztlbox在2004-9-23 21:15:00的发言：

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.
                

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

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

lawyer 大N说的意思：原文说违反宪法权利，而B说违法宪法原则；无关。

原文说the exclusionary rule is laudable,因为它禁止违反宪法权利，但是。。。结论the exclusionary rule 不好。

B说很多exclusionary rules求助于法律的案件都牵涉到purely technical 违法宪法原则。（翻译得不好，捷径就是：权利不是原则）

2004年前的题ETS（还不是GMAC）也太BT了吧，咬文嚼字。

buda

如果这道题题干当时没有看懂估计就等于歇了。

lawyer的解释很清晰哦，一个总结论带两个前提（even)，最后加一个中间结论。结构一下子看清楚了。我自己且看了一阵呢。

ellie78

泪如雨下……

coffinzsj

还是没看懂。。。