单选题
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 {{U}}the British trial system is more like a
game than a serious attempt to do justice{{/U}}. The lawyers on each side are so
engrossed in playing bard 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 contest) with the
continental "inquisitorial" system, under which the judge play 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 its
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 USA 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
witnesses 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.
单选题
"The British trial system is more like a game than a serious attempt to
do justice" (Lines 2～3, Para- graph 1) implies that ______.
A. the British legal system can do the basic job well — convicting the
guilty and acquitting the innocent
B. the British legal system is worse than the continental legal system
C. the British legal system is often considered to be not very fair
D. tbe British legal system is very efficient
【正确答案】
C
【答案解析】句意推测题。由句中game(游戏)与a serious attempt to do justice(实现正义的严肃尝试)之间的对比关系及这一段后文对于英国审判过程的描述可以推知[C]对。
单选题
Which of the following sentences is NOT true?
A. Oral evidence was unnecessary in France because the judges and
prosecutors could read.
B. When trial by ordeal was finally abandoned throughout Europe, trial by
jury was introduced tn Britain.
C. In the adversarial system. it is the lawyers who play the leading
roles.
D. Lawyers in Britain are prepared to lie in order to win their
cases.