2. 职称英语
  3. In America’s fiercely adversarial legal system, a good lawyer is essential.

In America’s fiercely adversarial legal system, a good lawyer is essential.

游客2025-04-21  36
问题     In America’s fiercely adversarial legal system, a good lawyer is essential. Ask O.J. Simpson. In a landmark case 35 years ago, Gideon v. Wainwright, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that indigent defendants must be provided with a lawyer at state expense because there could be no fair trial in a serious criminal case without one. "This seems to us to be an obvious truth," wrote Justice Hugo Black in his opinion. At the time, the decision was hailed as a triumph for justice, an example of America’s commitment to the ideal of equality before the law.
   This is the image most Americans still have of their criminal-justice system -- the fairest in the world, in which any defendant, no matter how, gets a smart lawyer who, too often, manages to get the culprit off on a technicality. Nothing could be further from the truth. About 80% of people accused of a felony have to depend on a publicly-provided lawyer; but over the past two decades the eagerness of politicians to look harsh on crime, their reluctance to pay for public defenders, and a series of Supreme Court judgments restricting the grounds for appeal have made a mockery of Gideon. Today many indigent defendants, including those facing long terms of imprisonment or even death, are treated to a "meet’em and plead’em " defense -- a brief consultation in which a harried or incompetent lawyer encourages them to plead guilty or, if that fails, struggle through a short trial in which the defense is massively outgunned by a more experienced, better-paid and better-prepared prosecutor.
   "We have a wealth-based system of justice," says Stephen Bright, the director of the Southern Center for Human Right. "For the wealthy, it’s gold-plated. For the average poor person, it’s like being herded to the slaughterhouse. In many places the adversarial system barely exists for the poor."
   Many lawyers, of course, have made heroic efforts for particular defendants for little or no pay, but the charity of lawyers can be relied on to handle only a tiny fraction of cases. As spending on police, prosecutors and prisons has steadily climbed in the past decade, increasing the number of people charged and imprisoned, spending on indigent defense has not kept pace, overwhelming an already hard-pressed system. [br] Which of the following statements is true?
选项 A、Lawyers who provide defense for the poor often work heroically for little or no pay at all.
B、As crime rate increases, American politicians have become more tolerant towards crime than before.
C、In America, if a person refuses to accept the judgment of a lower court, he can always appeal to the Supreme Court.
D、Government-provided lawyers tend to go through the formalities of defense and prove to be no match for the prosecutors.
答案 D
解析 根据文章第二段最后一句“Today many indigent defendants，including those facing long terms of imprisonment or even death，are treated to a“meet’em and plead’em”defense—a brief consultation in which a harried or incompetent lawyer encourages them to plead guilty or，if that fails，struggle through a short trial in which the defense is massively outgunned by a more experienced，better-paid and be~er-prepared prosecutor．”可知，当今很多贫穷的被告，甚至包括 那些面临长期徒刑或者死刑的被告都受到一种“假意的辩护(meet，em and Dlead，em)”——一 个简短的咨询。在这个咨询过程中，有一个草率的或不胜其任的律师鼓励犯人认罪，或者， 如果这种方法不奏效，就来一个快速的审判，在这个审判过程中，有一个经验丰富、报酬不 菲而且准备充足的检察官采取咄咄逼人的气势从而使得辩护形同虚无。所以，政府提供的律 师只是一种形式，其分量微乎其微。据此判断，答案是D。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/4046888.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)