2. 外语
  3. The Guildford Four, freed last week after spending 15 years in prison for crimes they did not commit, would almost certainly hav

The Guildford Four, freed last week after spending 15 years in prison for crimes they did not commit, would almost certainly hav

admin2011-01-02  31
问题    The Guildford Four, freed last week after spending 15 years in prison for crimes they did not commit, would almost certainly have been executed for the pub bombing they were convicted of had the death penalty been in force at the time of their trial. There may now be a decent interval before the pro-hanging lobby, which has the support of the Prime Minister, makes another attempt to reintroduce the noose.
   Reflections along these lines were about the only kind of consolation to be derived from this gross miscarriage of justice which is now to be the subject of a judicial inquiry. In the meantime, defence lawyers are demanding compensation and have in mind about half a million pounds for each of their clients.
   The first three to be released -- Mr. Gerald Conlon, Mr. Paddy Armstrong and Ms. Carole Richardson -- left prison with the 34 pounds which is given to all departing inmates. The fourth, Mr. Paul Hill, was not released immediately but taken to Belfast, where he lodged an appeal against his conviction for the murder of a former British soldier. Since this conviction, too, was based on the now discredited statements allegedly made to the Survey policy, he was immediately let out on bail. But he left empty-handed.
   The immediate reaction to the scandal was renewed demand for the reexamination of the case against the Birmingham Six, who are serving life sentences for pub bombings in that city. Thus far the Home secretary, Mr, Douglas Hurd, is insisting that the two cases are not comparable; that what is now known about the Guilford investigation has no relevance to what happened in Birmingham.
   Mr. Hurd is right to the extent that there was a small-though flimsy and hotly-contested -- amount of forensic evidence in the Birmingham case. The disturbing similarity is that the Birmingham Six, like the Guilford Four, claim that police of- ricers lied and fabricated evidence to secure a conviction.
   Making scapegoats of a few rogue police officers will not be sufficient to expunge the Guildford miscarriage of justice. These are already demands that the law should be changed first to make it impossible to convict on "confessions" alone; and secondly to require that statements from accused persons should only be taken in the presence of an independent third party to ensure they are not made under coercion.
   It was also being noted this week that the Guilford Four owe their release more to the persistence of investigative reporters than to the diligence of either the judiciary or the police. Yet investigative reports -- particularly on television -- have recently been a particular target for the condemnation of Mrs. Thatcher and some of her ministers who seem to think that TV should be muzzled in the public interest and left to get on with soap operas and quiz shows.
The existing law states that ______.
选项 A、convictions can be made on confessions and statements taken by police officers from accused persons are valid legal evidence
B、convictions can’ t be made on confessions alone and there should be a third party when taking statements from accused persons
C、convictions can be made on confessions and a third party should be present when taking statements from accused persons
D、convictions can’ t be made on confession alone and the statements taken by police officers from accused persons are valid legal evidence
答案A
解析 该题问：现存的法律陈述什么? A项意为“警员从被控人员那里取得的陈述是有效的合法的证据”，从文中的第五、六段可以知道A项为正确选项。B项意为“定罪不能仅仅根据供词，当从被控人员那里取得陈述时还应有第三方在场”，这在文中的第六段first to make it impossible to convict on confessions alone；and secondly to require  that statements from accused persons should only be taken in the presence of an independent third party to ensure they are not made under coercion可以看出。但是这句话的前提，There are already demands that the law should be changed。这只是demands，而不是现存法律，故B项亦不正确。C项意为“当有供词和第三方也在场的情况下从被控人员那里取得的陈述时可以定罪”，这也可从第六段中找到，然而这也是demands，而不是现存祛律。D项意为“不能仅仅根据供词定罪，警察官员从被控人员那里取得的陈述是合法有效的证据”，根据第六段，此项前半部分是错误的，且仅仅是demand，不是现存法律，后半部分是正确的。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/PBeO777K
0

专业英语八级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)