锛堜竴锛夋硶寰嬮

GOING BACK AND GETTING IT RIGHT

By almost every measure, Paul Pfingst is an unsentimental prosecutor. Last week the San Diego County district attorney said he fully intends to try suspect Charles Andrew Williams, 15, as an adult for the Santana High School shootings. Even before the tragedy, Pfingst had stood behind the controversial California law that mandates treating murder suspects as young as 14 as adults.

So nobody would have wagered that Pfingst would also be the first D.A. in the U.S. to launch his very own Innocence Project. Yet last June, Pfingst told his attorneys to go back over old murder and rape convictions and see if any unravel with newly developed DNA-testing tools. In other words, he wanted to revisit past victories--this time playing for the other team. "I think people misunderstand being conservative for being biased," says Pfingst. "I consider myself a pragmatic guy, and I have no interest in putting innocent people in jail."

Around the U.S., flabbergasted defense attorneys and their jailed clients cheered his move. Among prosecutors, however, there was an awkward pause. After all, each DNA test costs as much as $5,000. Then there's the unspoken risk: if dozens of innocents turn up, the D.A. will have indicted his shop.

But nine months later, no budgets have been busted or prosecutors ousted. Only the rare case merits review. Pfingst's team considers convictions before 1993, when the city started routine DNA testing. They discard cases if the defendant has been released. Of the 560 remaining files, they have re-examined 200, looking for cases with biological evidence and defendants who still claim innocence.

They have identified three so far. The most compelling involves a man serving 12 years for molesting a girl who was playing in his apartment. But others were there at the time. Police found a small drop of saliva on the victim's shirt--too small a sample to test in 1991. Today that spot could free a man. Test results are due any day. Inspired by San Diego, 10 other counties in the U.S. are starting DNA audits.

By Amanda Ripley ez ncisco sijevic rtwell; Lisa McLaughlin; Joseph Pierro; Josh Tyrangiel and Sora Song

娉�(1)鏈枃閬歌嚜Time; 03/19/2001, Vol. 157 Issue 11, p62, 1p, 2c, 3bw

娉�(2)鏈枃缈掗鍛介妯′豢灏嶈薄2004骞寸湡椤宼ext 1.

1.How did Pfingst carry out his own Innocence Project?

[A]By getting rid of his bias against the suspects.

[B]By revisiting the past victories.

[C]By using the newly developed DNA-testing tools.

[D]By his cooperation with his attorneys.

2.Which of the following can be an advantage of Innocence Project?

[A]To help correct the wrong judgments.

[B]To oust the unqualified prosecutors.

[C]To make the prosecutors in an awkward situation.

[D]To cheer up the defense attorneys and their jailed clients.

3.The expression 鈥渇labbergasted鈥�(Line 1, Paragraph 3) most probably means _______.

[A]excited

[B]competent

[C]embarrassed

[D]astounded

4.Why was Pfingst an unsentimental prosecutor?

[A]He intended to try a fifteen-year old suspect.

[B]He had no interest in putting the innocent in jail.

[C]He supported the controversial California law.

[D]He wanted to try suspect as young as fourteen.

5.Which of the following is not true according to the text?

[A]Pfingst鈥檚 move didn鈥檛 have a great coverage.

[B] Pfingst鈥檚 move had both the positive and negative effect.

[C] Pfingst鈥檚 move didn鈥檛 work well.

[D]Pfingst鈥檚 move greatly encouraged the jailed prisoners.

绡囩珷鍓栨瀽

鏈枃閲囩敤鐨勬槸瑷樻晿鏂囩殑妯″紡銆傜涓€娈垫寚鍑鸿姮鏂壒浣滅偤涓€浣嶉惖闈㈢劇绉佺殑妾㈡煡瀹樼殑涓€浜涘仛娉曪紱绗簩娈垫寚鍑鸿姮鏂壒瀵︽柦鈥滄竻鐧借▓鍔冣€濈殑鎵撶畻鍙婂仛娉�锛涚涓夋鎸囧嚭瀵︽柦鈥滄竻鐧借▓鍔冣€濋€犳垚鐨勫弽鎳変互鍙婂彲鑳藉瓨鍦ㄧ殑鍟忛锛涚鍥涙鍜岀浜旀鏄鏂解€滄竻鐧借▓鍔冣€濈殑绲愭灉鍜屽奖闊裤€�

瑭炲尟娉ㄩ噵

prosecutor [5prRsIkju:tE(r)]n.妾㈠療瀹� ,妾㈠療鍝�,璧疯ù浜�,鍘熷憡

controversial [kRntrE5v\:F(E)l]adj.鐖珫鐨�, 鐖鐨�

mandate [5mAndeIt]v.鎵规簴鍒惰▊涓€鍊嬭〒浠�锛屽閫氶亷娉曞緥锛涚櫦(f膩)甯冨懡浠ゆ垨瑕佹眰锛�

wager [5weIdVE(r)]v.涓嬭抄娉�, 淇濊瓑

conviction [kEn5vIkF(E)n]n.瀹氱姜, 瀹ｅ憡鏈夌姜

unravel[Qn5rAv(E)l]v. 闂℃槑, 瑙ｆ焙

flabbergast[5flAbE^B:st; (?@) -^Ast]v.<鍙�>浣垮ぇ鍚冧竴椹�, 鍟炵劧澶辫壊, 浣跨洰鐬彛鍛�

indict[In5daIt]v.璧疯ù, 鎺у憡, 鎸囨帶, 鍛婄櫦(f膩)

bustv.鐮寸敘(ch菐n)鎴栫己閷�

oustv.鍓濆オ, 鍙栦唬, 椹呴€�

discard[dI5skB:d]v.鎷嬮枊锛涢伜妫�锛涘虎妫�

molest[mE5lest]v.楱蜂簜, 鍥版摼, 瑾挎埐

saliva[sE5laIvE]n.鍙ｆ按, 鍞炬恫

闆ｅ彞绐佺牬

1.Even before the tragedy, Pfingst had stood behind the controversial California law that mandates treating murder suspects as young as 14 as adults.

涓婚珨鍙ュ紡锛氣€fingst had stood behind 鈥�

绲愭鍒嗘瀽锛欵ven before the tragedy鏄湰鍙ョ殑鏅傞枔鐙€瑾�锛涗富鍙ユ槸Pfingst had stood behind鈥�;that 寮曞皫鐨勮硴瑾炲緸鍙ヤ慨椋緇aw;鍦ㄥ緸鍙ヤ腑锛宎s鈥s鏄竴瑭炵祫锛屾剰鎬濇槸鈥滃拰鈥︿竴妯ｂ€�锛涘嚭鐝�(xi脿n)鐨勭涓夊€媋s鏄粙瑭烇紝鎰忔€濇槸鈥滀綔鐐衡€�銆�

鍙ュ瓙璀枃锛氱敋鑷冲湪閫欏牬鎮插妵鐧�(f膩)鐢熶箣鍓嶈姮鏂壒灏辨敮鎸佸姞鍒╃灏间簽宸炵殑涓€闋呴牀鏈夌埈璀扮殑娉曞緥銆傞€欓爡娉曞緥瑕�(gu墨)瀹�锛屼互鎴愪汉韬唤鍙楀鐨勮瑎娈哄珜鐤戠姱鐨勬渶浣庡勾榻″彲浠ラ檷鍒板崄鍥涙銆�

椤岀洰鍒嗘瀽

1.绛旀鐐篊锛屽爆浜嬪绱扮瘈(ji茅)椤�銆傛枃涓皪鎳変俊鎭€淧fingst told his attorneys to go back over old murder and rape convictions and see if any unravel with newly developed DNA-testing tools.鈥濇槸灏嶇浜屾绗竴鍙ョ殑瑁滃厖瑾槑銆�

2.绛旀鐐篈锛屽爆鎺ㄧ悊鍒ゆ柗椤�銆傚緸涓婁笅鏂囨垜鍊戝彲浠ュ緱鐭ワ紝瀵︽柦鈥滄竻鐧借▓鍔冣€濆氨鏄娇鐢ㄥ厛閫茬殑DNA鎶€琛撲締閲嶆柊瀵╃悊閬庡幓鐨勬浠剁暥涓彲鑳藉瓨鍦ㄧ殑鍐ゆ閷銆�

3.绛旀鐐篋, 灞寽瑭為銆傚緸绗簩娈电涓€鍙ヨ┍鎴戝€戝緱鐭ヨ姮鏂壒鍙兘鏄編鍦嬬涓€鍊嬪鏂介潪甯哥崹鐗圭殑鈥滄竻鐧借▓鍔冣€濈殑浜�锛屽洜姝や粬鐨勫仛娉曞緢鍙兘鏄护浜烘劅鍒板悆椹氱殑锛屽緸鑰屽彲鐚滃嚭瑭茶鐨勫惈缇�銆�

4.绛旀鐐築锛屽爆鎺ㄧ悊鍒ゆ柗椤�銆傚緸绗竴娈靛拰绗簩娈电郸鍑虹殑浜嬩緥鎴戝€戝彲浠ョ湅鍑�锛岃姮鏂壒涓嶆効鏀鹃亷浠讳綍涓€鍊嬬姱缃殑浜�锛屽嵆渚夸粬鐨勫勾榻￠倓涓嶇畻澶�锛涗粬涔熶笉鎰夸娇鐒¤緶鑰呰挋鍐�锛屽嵆渚挎浠跺凡缍�(j墨ng)瀵╃悊銆�

5.绛旀鐐篊锛屽爆鎺ㄧ悊鍒ゆ柗椤�銆傛鍥犵偤 鈥淧fingst鈥檚 move works well鈥�,缇庡湅鎵嶅張鏈夆€渢en other counties are starting DNA audits鈥�,鑰屼笖锛屸€渘o budgets have been busted or prosecutors ousted鈥�.