首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
How efficient is our system of criminal trial? Does it really do the basic job we ask of it—convicting the guilty and acquitting
How efficient is our system of criminal trial? Does it really do the basic job we ask of it—convicting the guilty and acquitting
admin
2011-05-29
57
问题
How efficient is our system of criminal trial? Does it really do the basic job we ask of it—convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent? It is often said that the British trial system is more like a game than a serious attempt to do justice. The lawyers on each side are so engrossed in playing hard to win, challenging each other and the judge on technical points, that the object of finding out the truth is almost forgotten. All the effort is concentrated on the big day, on the dramatic cross-examination of the key witnesses in front of the jury. Critics like to compare our "adversarial" system (resembling two adversaries engaged in a contest) with the Continental "inquisitorial" system, under which the judge plays a more important inquiring role.
In early times, in the Middle Ages, the systems of trial across Europe were similar. At that time trial by "ordeal"— essentially a religious event—was the main way of testing guilt or innocence. When this was eventually abandoned, the two systems parted company. On the Continent, church-trained legal officials took over the function of both prosecuting and judging, while in England these were largely left to lay people, the Justice of the Peace and the jury. The jurymen were often illiterate and this meant that all the evidence had to be put to them orally. This historical accident dominates procedure even today, with all evidence being given in open court by word of mouth on the crucial day.
On the other hand, in France for instance, all the evidence is written before the trial under supervision by an investigating judge. This exhaustive pretrial looks very undramatic; much of it is just a public checking of the written records already gathered.
The Americans adopted the British system lock, stock and barrel and enshrined it in their Constitution. But, while the basic features of our systems are common, there are now significant differences in the way serious cases are handled. First, because the U. S. A. has virtually no contempt of court laws to prevent pretrial publicity in the newspaper and on television, American lawyers are allowed to question jurors about knowledge and beliefs.
In Britain this is virtually never allowed, and a random selection of jurors who are presumed not to be prejudiced are empanelled. Secondly, there is no separate profession of barrister in the United States, and both prosecution and defense lawyers who are to present cases in court prepare them themselves. They go out and visit the scene, track down and interview witnesses, and familiarize themselves personally with the background. In Britain it is the solicitor who prepares the case; the barrister who appears in court is not even allowed lo meet witness beforehand. British barristers also alternate doing both prosecution and defense work. By being kept distant from the preparation and regularly appearing for both sides, barristers are said to avoid becoming too personally involved, and can approach cases more dispassionately. American lawyers, however, often know their cases better.
Reformers rightly want to learn from other countries’ mistakes and successes. But what is clear is that justice systems, largely because they are the result of long historical growth, are peculiarly difficult to adapt piecemeal.
The passage ______.
选项
A、questions whether the system of trial by jury can ever be completely efficient
B、suggests a number of reforms which should be made to the legal system of various countries
C、describes how the British legal system works and compares it favourably with other systems
D、compares the legal systems 9fa number of countries and discusses their advantages and disadvantages
答案
D
解析
综合全文,我们可以看到,文章第一段指出了英国法律制度存在的弊端,第二段谈到英国法律制度的优点,第三段谈到英国法律制度相比法国法律制度存在的利弊,第四、第五段则评述了英美国家法律制度的异同。由此我们可以推断全文的主旨是将几国的法律制度相比较并阐述了他们各自的利弊,因此正确答案应当为D。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/JC6O777K
0
考博英语
相关试题推荐
Readthearticlebelowaboutcomputerindustry.Foreachquestion(23-28)ontheoppositepage,choosethecorrectanswer.Markon
Admission:ADULTS20p,CHILDRENFREE.
CustomerTargetingFindingandkeepingloyalandprofitablecustomersisessential.Theroutetolong-termsuccessistofin
TheDevelopmentProgrammeManagementProcessAEstablishingareviewboardfordevelopmentsBEstablishingreviewcriteriaandm
Lookatthechartbelow.Itshowsthesharepriceofeightcompaniesintwoweeks.Whichcompanydoeseachsentence(11-15)desc
FeaturesofWarehouseManagementSystemWarehouseManagementSystemsaregainingimportancesimilartothatofothersoftwar
Asoneworkswithcolorinapracticalorexperimentalway,oneisimpressedbytwoapparentlyunrelatedfacts.Colorasseenis
Whatdoconsumersreallywant?That’saquestionmarketresearcherswouldlovetoanswer.Butsincepeopledon’talwayssaywhat
PerhapsthemosttypicallyAmerican(types)offeaturemovie,thewestern,(hasbeen)aresurgence(in)popularity(inrecentye
Contradictorytopopularbelief,recentsurveysshowthatbesideshousewives,manycollegestudentsarealso______tosoapoper
随机试题
众所周知,感冒发烧那是因为身体发了炎,产生了炎症。不仅如此,其实在人类的大部分严重疾病的发病过程中,例如肝硬化、糖尿病,甚至包括癌症,炎症都在其中扮演了至关重要的角色。而间充质干细胞就可以根据炎症的强弱大小,或者炎症发生的地点,来变换自己的性质,发挥自己不
沈冰和王玲合作创作了一部著作,1994年出版时,双方约定的署名顺序为沈冰、王玲。1998年甲、乙在原作的基础上共同修订准备出第二版。在该书付印之际王玲未与沈冰协商,即通知出版社调整署名顺序,将署名改为:王玲、沈冰。图书出版后沈冰见署名顺序被调换,便告王玲侵
ThenorthAustraliancityonDarwinwasdevastatedbyastrongcycloneonChristmasDay.Thedeathanddestructionwasduealmos
休克期相当于
治疗单纯疱疹病毒性角膜炎,常选用的药物为
预制灭火装置灭火剂的管道长度不得大于()m。
有人认为,高考是很重要的考试,一年只有一次,应该让迟到考生进场考试。如果以下各项为真,最能削弱上述观点的是()。
胡萝卜、西红柿和其他一些蔬菜含有较丰富的β-胡萝卜素,β-胡萝卜素具有防止细胞癌变的作用。近年来提炼出一些蔬菜含有较丰富的β-胡萝卜素被制成片剂并建议吸烟者服用,以防止吸烟引起的癌症。然而,意大利博洛尼亚大学和美国得克萨斯大学的科学家发现,经常服用β-胡萝
和平共处五项原则是中国与哪些国家共同提出的()
Aneweraisuponus.Callitwhatyouwill:theserviceeconomy,theinformationage,theknowledgesociety.Italltranslates
最新回复
(
0
)