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
2010-06-30
32
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 trail 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 con test) 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" —especially a religious event—was the main way of testing guilt or innocence. When this way 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 jurymen who were 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, Americans 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 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, and the barrister who appears in court is not even allowed to meet witness beforehand. British barristers also alternate doing both prosecution and defense work. 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 of a 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/k6Jd777K
本试题收录于:
公共英语四级笔试题库公共英语(PETS)分类
0
公共英语四级笔试
公共英语(PETS)
相关试题推荐
AnswerQuestions71to80byreferringtothe3articlesonjuveniledelinquency.AnswereachquestionbychoosingA,BorCand
Ontheheelsofitsrecentdecisiontocriminalizeconsumerswhoripsongsfromalbumstheyhavepurchasedtotheircomputers(or
Whyisthereformofpubliceducationunlikelytohappen?
"Junkscience"ishowElliotMorley,Britain’sministerresponsibleforgeneticallymodifiedfarming,describesstudiesthatcla
YouwillhearaninterviewwithStevenCasey,onhumanfactorsindesign.Asyoulisten,answerthequestionsorcompletetheno
YouwillhearaninterviewwithProf.JesseAusubelabouthisoptimisticattitudestowardsenvironmentalissuestoday.Asyouli
Whyisitnecessarytogiveacointosomeonewhenyougivehimapresentwithasharpedgeorpoint?
Whatarethespeakersdoing?
SoftwarepiracyproblemsexistandhavebeenexacerbatedinrecentyearsduetoISoverload,decentralizedpurchasing,budgetc
Lastyear,howmanyflightstraveledthroughO’HareaccordingtotheFederalAviationAdministration?
随机试题
Everyartistknowsinhisheartthatheissayingsomethingtothepublic.Notonlydoeshewanttosayitwell,buthewantsit
患者男性,35岁,十二指肠壶腹部溃疡病史5年,4h前出现呕血和排柏油样便,查体,血压70/50mmHg,脉搏120/min,血红蛋白65g/L.该病常见的并发症有
A.发病之初无卫分证,而径见气分证或营分证B.邪入卫分后,不经过气分阶段而直接深入营、血分C.病变从卫分开始,依次传人气分、营分、血分D.卫分证未罢,又兼气分证E.气分证尚存,又出现营分证或血分证
案情:马某(19岁)和李某(17岁)两人是同班同学,二人都不好学习。一日,马某发现学校附近有一个建筑工地里堆放着许多电缆,且看管不严,便打起了偷电缆卖钱的主意。马某将此想法与李某商量,二人一拍即合。为保证偷得电缆后顺利脱手,二人在行动之前专门去了一个五金商
图4-42所示机构由杆O1A、O2B和三角板ABC组成。已知:杆O1A转动的角速度为ω,O1A=O2B=r,AC=h,O1O2=AB,则图示瞬时点C速度vC的大小和方向为()。
首先提出全面质量管理概念的是()。
以下固定资产可以按规定计提折旧的是()。
标志着学前公共思想诞生的理论著作是柏拉图的________。
Now,ourbiggestsummertimequestionhasbeenanswered:Whydopeoplelooksomuchbetterinsunglasses?VanessaBrown,asenior
HowdoyoufindajobontheInternet?
最新回复
(
0
)