单选题
Last week, Utah federal Judge Paul G. Cassell handed a 22-year sentence to a man who beat an elderly woman to death with a log. A few hours later, Judge Cassell sentenced a 25-year-old first-time drug offender to 55 years. If you think Judge Cassell liked sentencing a small-change drug dealer to more time than a violent killer, guess again. The judge had no choice. Federal law demanded the sentence, despite Judge Cassell's pointed questioning if there was a "rational basis" for sentencing Weldon H. Angelos, the father of two young children, to more time than he could sentence a hijacker, murder or rapist. Blame federal mandatory minimum sentencing rules. A jury found Angelos guilty on three separate charges of possessing a firearm while he sold a half-pound of marijuana for ＄ 350. The first charge of possessing a gun during a drug transaction brought a five-year sentence--the second two charges brought 25 years each. That adds up to 55 years, so even if Angelos were found guilty of selling ＄1,050 of drugs, Judge Cassell had to follow the rules and sentence him to 55 years on the gun charges. (The judge did use a recent federal ruling in reducing the sentence for the drug-selling crimes to one day. ) Judge Cassell was right to impose the draconian sentence. If he ignored federal law, he would place himself above it. Instead, Judge Cassell sentenced Angelus as the law directed, even as he righteously hectored Congress to rewrite federal drug laws so first-time offenders don't serve more time than dangerous career criminals. The judge also urged Angelus' attorney, Jerome H. Mooney, to appeal the sentence and, if appeals fail, seek a presidential commutation. While civil-rights advocates across America protested the sentence, the Utah US Attorney's office defended the system. To prosecutors, Angelus is no Buy Scout. Officials found some 26 empty duffel hags with marijuana residue. Local feds believed Angelus was a big drug dealer, Assistant US Attorney Robert Lund told me, and associated with a violent street gang. Let me say this: Angelus never was a good poster boy for the movement to humanize draconian federal drug laws. Angelus turned down a plea-bargain sentence of 16 years. He is considered a first-time offender only because a juvenile gun conviction was expunged from his record. And even if Angelos didn't wave his gun in people's faces, he nonetheless brought a gun with him during the transactions. But Angelos has become a national cause celebre because of Judge Cassell. There are more egregious examples of first-time offenders sentenced to decades for petty dealing, but they didn't come before a judge vocally opposed to the heavy handed nature of federal drug sentencing. That said, it simply doesn't make sense that federal sentences often are tougher on small-time drug offenders than on violent criminals. But it happens all the time.
单选题
The word "draconian" (Line 1, Paragraph 4) may probably mean A. federal. B. separate. C. tough. D. guilty.
单选题
We can learn from the text that Judge Cassell A. ignored the federal law. B. sentenced Angelos according to the federal law he wrote. C. was a friend of Jerome H. Mooney. D. thought his sentence was tough.
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】细节题。文章第四段提到，法官的判决很严厉，但这个判决是正确的。因为如果法官不顾法律规定，他就是在践踏法律。因此，[A]“忽视联邦法律”和[B]“根据其自己写的联邦法律来对Angelos判刑”都不正确。文章第五段第一句提到法官与议会开玩笑，希望他们修改法律，使第一次违法的人受到的惩罚不会比危险的职业罪犯的刑罚还重。换言之，法官认为现行法律对轻罪的刑罚过重，即[D]为正确选项。文章第五段最后一句提到Jerome H. Mooney是Angelos的律师，并未提及他是Cassell法官的朋友，所以[C]也不正确。
单选题
By saying that "Angelos has Become a national cause celebre" (Line 1, Paragraph 8), the author implies that A. Angelos was the first one who turned down a plea-bargain. B. Angelos was the first one sentenced to decades for petty dealings. C. Angelos was the first one opposing to the heavy-handed nature of federal drugs sentence before a judge. D. Angelos was the most egregious example of first-time offenders sentenced to decades.
单选题
From the last paragraph we can infer that A. the federal sentences on small-time drug offenders are always tougher. B. the federal sentences on small-time drug offenders are tougher in some cases than on violent criminals. C. the federal sentences on violent criminals must be tougher. D. the federal sentences on violent criminals and on small-time drug offenders are both tough.