单选题 Imagine a classroom where the instructors speak a foreign language and the students can"t take notes, turn to a textbook, or ask any questions. Yet at the end of the final exam, one participant may face life in jail or even death. That"s the task handed to American jurors, briefly thrown together to decide accused criminals" fate.
In "A Trial by Jury," Princeton history professor D. Graham Burnett offers a rare glimpse inside jury deliberations at a New York murder trial where he served as foreman last year. According to the prosecutor, the case seems clear cut: a sexual encounter between two men went wrong. The defendant stabbed his victim 26 times, but claims he acted in self-defense, killing a man who was attempting to rape him. Burnett opens with a detailed description of the crime. He then introduces the characters and walks readers through the 10-day trial. You hear the testimony of witnesses dressed in strange clothes and find yourself put off by a growling prosecutor and the judge"s indifference. Once retreated in the jury room, confusion reigns. Most jurors don"t understand the charges or the meaning of self-defense. Uninterested jurors seem more concerned about missing appointments. On the third day, one juror runs to a bathroom in tears after exchanging curses. By the final day, nearly everyone cries.
Though he"s no more familiar with the law than the other jurors, who include a vacuum-cleaner repairman and a software developer, it"s fitting that Burnett is a teacher. For us, he serves as a patient instructor, illustrating with his experience just what a remarkable and sometimes remarkably strange duty serving on a jury can be.
For many citizens, jury duty is their first exposure to our justice system. Jurors discover first hand the gap between law and justice. They face two flawed versions of the same event, offered by witnesses they may not believe. We assume jurors will take their job seriously. We expect them to digest complicated definitions that leave lawyers confused.
But as Burnett quickly discovers, jurors receive little help. The judge offers them no guidance about how to conduct themselves and races through his delivery of the murder charges. Only within the past decade have we finally abandoned the misconception that jurors naturally reach the right decision without any assistance. Led by Arizona, states have instituted jury reforms as simple as letting jurors take notes or obtain written copies of their instructions. It"s not clear whether these changes improve the quality of justice, but the reforms certainly ensure that jurors leave their tour of duty with better feelings about the experience. Unfortunately, such reforms hadn"t come yet to New York at the time of this trial. Nonetheless, Burnett and his fellow jurors grope toward their own solution, ultimately reaching what he describes as an "avowedly imperfect" result.
单选题 The focal point of "A Trial by Jury" seems to be on ______
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】[解析] 从第二段第一句我们了解到,伯内特教授去年在一次凶杀案的审讯中被选入陪审团,并任陪审团主席(foreman)。第二段简述了案件的审讯过程,第四、五段描述了陪审团制度的缺点和改革该制度的一些努力。在“A Trial by Jury”中,伯内特用自己的亲身经历和所见所闻揭示了陪审团制度的缺点。
单选题 The point the author intends to make by employing the analogy in the first paragraph is that ______
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】[解析] 在第一段,作者举了一个例子,用以说明第一段第三句表达的观点。想象一下有这样一个课堂,课堂上老师说的是外语,学生也不能记笔记,不能参考教科书或提问。但是,到期终考试结束时,一个参加考试的人会面临终身监禁甚至死刑。在美国,陪审员接受的就是这样一项任务,他们被临时组合在一起来决定被告人的命运。这里,将陪审员比作那些既听不懂课,考试时又不能看书或提问的学生。根据下文谈到的内容,这里实际上是说陪审员没有必要的法律知识等帮助他们做出判决。
单选题 The description of what happened inside the jury room seems to suggest that ______
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】[解析] 伯内特是这样描述法庭里的情景的:你听的是穿着怪异的人(drag指男人穿着女人的衣装)陈述的证词,检察官的咆哮和法官的冷漠让你感到厌恶。一旦离开法庭来到陪审团室,混乱接踵而至。许多陪审员不明白控词或正当防卫的意思,缺乏兴趣的人似乎更关心错过的约会,到第三天时,一位陪审员在与别人互相骂了几句后哭着冲进洗手间。截止到最后一天,几乎每个人都嚷嚷起来。可见,在这种情绪状态下,陪审员怎么可能做出冷静、公正的判决?
单选题 The average people used to take it for granted that ______
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】[解析] 第四段提到,我们认为陪审员会很认真地对待自己的工作,我们认为他们能把那些使律师们摸不着头脑的复杂问题理出头绪。这是一般的人对陪审团通常的看法。
单选题 The objective of the jury reforms is to ______
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】[解析] 最后一段提到了司法改革,在亚利桑那州的带动下,各州对陪审团制度进行改革,包括让陪审员做笔记或给他们书面指令这样的简单事情。这些改革是否改进了司法质量还有待证明(言外之意,“改进司法质量”是改革的原初目的),但是它们确实保证了陪审员完成自己的义务以后获得良好的感受。言外之意,他们的情绪不会像第二段描述的那种情景一样。参阅第3题题解。