2. 外语
  3. The story of Polly Klaas’ murder by a man with a history of violence galvanized California voters into passing the state’s three

The story of Polly Klaas’ murder by a man with a history of violence galvanized California voters into passing the state’s three

admin2010-05-14  57
问题    The story of Polly Klaas’ murder by a man with a history of violence galvanized California voters into passing the state’s three-strikes-and-you’re-out law in 1994. Two dozen states and the federal government have now adopted similar laws. Still, only in California can conviction on any third felony put someone behind bars for life. That singularity points to what is wrong with the California law, despite its emotionally wrenching origins.
   Eleven years after Polly was snatched from her upstairs bedroom and murdered, voters are troubled by other stories--about the Army veteran who stole $153 worth of videotapes or the father who pinched a box of diapers for his baby, both now in prison for life, and about the $31,000 that taxpayers pony up every year to house such individuals. Those tales should push voters to pass Proposition 66, correcting a gross injustice while reserving the harshest punishment for those who commit the worst crimes.
   Proposition 66 would limit third-strike offenses to serious or violent felonies; that’s the law many voters now say they thought they passed back in 1994. Excluded would be crimes like petty theft, passing a bad check or holding a small amount of drugs. These offenses would remain felonies for repeat offenders, who could still get longer prison terms for each new crime. Only the life sentence is excluded.
   Of California’s 7,300 third-strikers, 4,200 are doing 25 years to life for a nonserious or nonviolent felony. Proposition 66 also requires judges to resentence these third-strikers, meaning some who have already served several years behind bars may be freed.
   Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley first campaigned for office in 2000 arguing that the 1994 law was unduly harsh and wisely promising not to charge as strikes most nonviolent, nonserious felonies without a good reason. Because Cooley has made good on that promise, his opposition to Proposition 66 is particularly disappointing. He--along with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Oakland Mayor and former Gov. Jerry Brown and Atty. Gen. Bill Loekyer--now insists, wrongly in our view, that the measure would flood the streets with predators. Those who might be released would have already done time for their crimes, just not life.
   Proposition 66 does not eliminate the three-strikes law. It restores voters’ original intent to keep violent criminals off the street for good. That said, like almost every initiative, Proposition 66 is not a model of nuanced legislation. It goes too far in narrowing the universe of "third strikes". If it passes, lawmakers in Sacramento should reinstate serious offenses like burglary and arson to that list.
   Then again, if Sacramento had fixed the three-strikes law in the first place, and not been so cowered by the fear of seeming "soft on crime", this proposition wouldn’t be needed now.
According to the passage, which of the following statements is NOT true in relation to Proposition 66?
选项 A、It limits third-strike offenses to those worst crimes.
B、It puts right an obviously unfair law in California.
C、It differs considerably from the three-strikes law.
D、It abolishes the three-strikes-and-you’re-out law.
答案D
解析 见倒数第二段第一句(Proposition 66　does　not　eliminate　the　three-strikes law)。制订Proposition 66 的目的是修正或改进three-strikes-and-you’re-outlaw(因为处罚过严)，而不是废弃它。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/K6lO777K
0

专业英语八级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)