reading Project 1-未过六级者.docVIP

Project One Part I: Multiple choice In this section, you’ll read some passages. After each passage, there’re five questions. You’ll choose the best answer for each question from the choices marked A, B, C and D. Passage 1 Justice and injustice in criminal adjudication are more than abstract concepts; in modern America each term conjures up its own paradigm image. Justice occurs in a somber courtroom where a robed reach a legal decision. Injustice is a bloodthirsty mob bearing lit torches, intimidating on the doors of the jail desperate to wreak revenge upon the suspected wrongdoer held within. 　　This image of injustice provides many normative insights. One that courts have frequently drawn is that in criminal adjudication emotion is unalterably opposed to reason and thus to justice itself. Taking this principle a step farther, courts have urged that the more a legal issue might provoke popular rage, the harder courts must work to insulate the legal decision from emotive influence. The classic example is capital sentencing, an occasion which evokes strong emotions. Here the Supreme Court has worked to ensure that “any decision to impose the death sentence be, and appear to be, based on reason rather than caprice or emotion.” The Court has, over a period of years, undertaken an extensive regulatory project aimed at suppressing emotive influence in capital cases by mandating rationalistic ruled to guide sentencing. This insistence upon the injustice of all emotion stems from a misconception of emotion and its influence upon criminal punishment. Although the mob-at-jail scene illustrates that anger can lead to injustice, it does not support the proposition that all decisions influenced by anger are morally tainted. Anger can be justified and have moral decision-making is complex; untangling it involves a close examination of emotion than the law has generally undertaken. 　　This has obvious significance for criminal law as a form of social concord. But it is also importa