The image was riveting， as justice John Paul Stevens， a Chicago native， presented it. A gang member and his father are hanging out near Wrigley Field. Are they there “to rob an unsuspecting fan or just to get a glimpse of Sammy Sosa leaving the ball park?” A police officer has no idea， but under Chicago's anti-gang law， the cop must order them to disperse. With Stevens writing for a 6-to-3 majority， the Supreme Court last week struck down Chicago's sweeping statute， which had sparked 42，000 arrests in its three years of enforcement.

　　The decision was a blow to advocates of get-tough crime policies. But in a widely noted concurring opinion， Justice Sandra Day O'Connor suggested that a less draconian approach——distinguishing gang members from innocent bystanders——might pass constitutional muster. New language could target loiterers “with no apparent purpose other than to establish control over identifiable areas， to intimidate others from entering those areas or to conceal illegal activities，” she wrote. Chicago officials vowed to draft a new measure. “We will go back and correct it and then move forward，” said Mayor Richard Daley.

　　Chicago officials， along with the League of Cities and 31 states that sided with them in court， might do well to look at one state where anti-gang loitering prosecutions have withstood constitutional challenges： California. The state has two antiloitering statutes on the books， aimed at people intending to commit specific crimes——prostitution and drug dealing. In addition， a number of local prosecutors are waging war against gangs by an innovative use of the public-nuisance laws.

　　In cities such as Los Angeles and San Jose， prosecutors have sought injunctions against groups of people suspected of gang activity. “The officers in the streets know the gang members and gather physical evidence for lengthy court hearings，” says Los Angeles prosecutor Martin Vranicar. If the evidence is enough to convince a judge， an injunction is issued to prohibit specific behavior——such as carrying cell phones or pagers or blocking sidewalk passage——in defined geographical areas. “It works instantly，” says San Jose city attorney Joan Gallo， who successfully defended the tactic before the California Supreme Court. “A few days after the injunctions， children are playing on streets where they never were before.”

　　So far， only a few hundred gang members have been targeted， out of an estimated 150，000 in Los Angeles alone. But experts say last week's decision set the parameters for sharper measures. Says Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe： “It just means they have to use a scalpel rather than an invisible mallet.”

　　注(1)：本文選自By Margot Hornblower/Los Angeles With reporting by Timothy Roche/Chicago and Andrea Sachs/New York Time; 06/21/99， Vol. 153 Issue 24， p55， 2/3p， 1bw

　　注

　　注(2)：本文習題命題模仿對象2004年真題Text 2.

　　1. What does the author intend to illustrate with the example of the gang member and his father?

　　[A]How the antiloitering law works.

　　[B]How to maintain charming image.

　　[C]How tough the crime polices were.

　　[D]Why Chicago‘s sweeping statute stroke down.

　　2. What can we infer from the first two paragraphs?

　　[A]Chicago‘s antiloitering law shouldn’t be struck down.

　　[B]The cop was entitled to send the gangs away.

　　[C]Chicago officials yielded to the result of striking down the law.

　　[D]antiloitering law in Chicago was much too severe for the majority.

　　3. The third and fourth paragraphs suggest that ________.

　　[A]the League of Cities and 31 states should work with Chicago officials

　　[B]the injunctions in some cities brought back the safety on the street

　　[C]California successfully starts the battle against the gangs

　　[D]the police officers shoulder more responsibility than before

　　4. What does the author mean by “It just means they have to use a scalpel rather than an invisible mallet” (The Last Line， Paragraph 5)?

　　[A]The gang members should be given a get-tough attitude in the long run.

　　[B]The targeted gang members rather than all of them should be given a get-tough treatment.

　　[C] A scalpel can cut off the tumors of the society while the invisible mallet fails to.

　　[D]A scalpel is more powerful than the invisible mallet.

　　5. Which of the following is true according to the text?

　　[A]Chicago‘s sweeping statute was struck down for its involving too many arrests.

　　[B]Chicago officials still maintained their get-tough crime policies.

　　[C]It was not safe for children to play on the street.

　　[D]California used a scalpel while other states used an invisible mallet to cope with the gangs.

　　答案：ADCBD

　　篇章剖析

　　本文采用提出問題——解決問題的模式。第一段和第二段提出芝加哥因為種種原因解除了禁止閑蕩法令;第三段、四段和五段針對這一問題，指出加利福尼亞的做法是非常值得借鑒的。

　　詞匯注釋

　　loiter v.閑蕩， 虛度， 徘徊

　　rivet v. 吸引(注意力)

　　disperse v.(使)分散， (使)散開， 疏散

　　statute n.法令， 條例

　　enforcement n.執行， 強制

　　concur v.同時發生

　　draconian adj.嚴酷的，極其殘酷的;十分嚴厲的：

　　intimidate v. 恐嚇使膽怯;使害怕

　　innovative adj.創新的， 革新(主義)的

　　injunction n.命令， 指令， [律]禁令

　　parameter n.參數， 參量， 起限定作用的因素

　　scalpel n.解剖刀

　　mallet n.槌棒

　　難句突破

　　1.Chicago officials， along with the League of Cities and 31 states that sided with them in court， might do well to look at one state where anti-gang loitering prosecutions have withstood constitutional challenges： California.

　　主體結構：Chicago officials might do well to look at …

　　結構分析：“along with the League of Cities and 31 states”在句子中做伴隨狀語，其中that又引導定語從句進行修飾;主句中where又引導從句來修飾state.

　　句子翻譯：只要芝加哥官員以及那些在法庭上支持他們的城市聯盟和31個州去看看那個州—加州—的情況就可以處理好他們的問題。加州的反犯罪集團閑蕩起訴案已經受住了憲法的挑戰。

　　題目分析

　　1.答案為A，屬推理判斷題。文中對應信息“but under Chicago's anti-gang law， the cop must order them to disperse”，從第一段我們可以看出作者在介紹芝加哥的“禁止閑蕩法令”是如何運做及被解除的。

　　2.答案為D，屬推理判斷題。第一段和第二段主要介紹芝加哥解除了“禁止閑蕩法令”。從第一段“which had sparked 42，000 arrests in its three years of enforcement”，我們可以看出這一法令是非常嚴厲的;從第二段“But in a widely noted concurring opinion， Justice Sandra Day O'Connor suggested that a less draconian approach——distinguishing gang members from innocent bystanders——might pass constitutional muster.”我們可以看出一項較寬松的法令即將出臺。從這些地方我們可做出判斷。

　　3.答案為C， 屬推理判斷題。第三段和第四段主要介紹了加利福尼亞州是如何與街頭幫派行為做斗爭的。

　　4.答案為B，屬推理判斷題。這篇文章中存在對比：芝加哥的肅清法令“sparked 42，000 arrests in its three years of enforcement”，重在大范圍的打擊;加利福尼亞州“So far， only a few hundred gang members have been targeted， out of an estimated 150，000 in Los Angeles alone.”重在小范圍的清除。

　　5.答案為D，屬推理判斷題。分析同第四題。

　　參考譯文

　　正如芝加哥法官約翰。保羅。斯蒂文斯所描述的那樣，這種景象是非常吸引人的。一個犯罪集團成員和他的父親在里格利球場附近閑蕩，他們在那“是想搶劫一個毫無戒心的球迷呢，還是只為了目睹一下正在離場的塞米索薩棒球隊的風采呢?”警官不得而知，但是根據芝加哥反犯罪集團法，警察必須命令他們散開。鑒于史蒂文法官上書要求以6比3的多數通過廢除法令案，上個星期最高法院廢除了芝加哥的肅清法令。這項法令在三年的實施時間里，引發了42，000起逮捕案。

　　這一決定對于那些主張嚴厲懲治犯罪的人來說，無疑是當頭一棒。但是根據一種相當著名且普遍贊同的觀點，法官桑德拉?戴?奧康納認為，采取一種不太嚴厲的做法—把犯罪集團成員與無辜的旁觀者加以區分的方法—可能更符合憲法的規定。她這樣寫道，議案中使用的新的措辭可能會把那些“除了控制可識別區域、恐嚇他人不得進入該區域或隱瞞非法活動外沒有其它明確目的”的閑蕩者作為目標。芝加哥官員發誓要起草一項新措施。理查德?戴利市長說：“我們要回過頭去對其進行糾正，然后再繼續往前走。”

　　只要芝加哥官員以及那些在法庭上支持他們的城市聯盟和31個州去看看那個州—加州—的情況就可以處理好他們的問題。加州的反犯罪集團閑蕩起訴案已經受住了憲法的挑戰。這個州已將兩部禁止閑蕩的法律編輯成冊，該法律主要針對那些意欲犯如賣淫和販毒等特種罪行的人。另外，當地一些檢察官正創新性地應用公共妨害法向犯罪集團宣戰。

　　在洛杉磯和圣何塞這樣的城市，檢察官已要求對那些被懷疑有團伙犯罪行為的犯罪集團成員實行禁令。洛杉磯檢察官馬丁?弗拉尼卡說：“大街上巡邏的警察熟悉犯罪集團的成員，并為漫長的法庭審訊收集物證。” 如果證據能足以使法官信服，就會頒布禁令，在特定區域里禁止某些特定的行為—比如攜帶手機或尋呼機或阻礙行人通道。曾在加利福尼亞最高法庭上成功為泰迪公司(The Tactic)進行辯護的圣何塞市律師瓊?加洛說：“這馬上就奏效了。禁止令頒布幾天之后，孩子們就開始在他們以前未去過的大街上玩耍了。”

　　據估計，洛杉磯150，000個犯罪集團成員中，至今只有幾百人被定為目標對象。但是專家們表示，上周的決定為實施更為嚴厲的措施確立了范圍。哈福法律教授勞倫斯?特萊布說：“這只是意味著，他們須用手術刀，而不是用無形的木槌來解決這一問題了。”

　　編輯推薦：

　　各省市2015年考研報考費用匯總

　　2015年考研網上正式報名入口已開通 點擊進入

　　2015年考研政治資料：2014年國內外時事政治熱點

　　2015年考研政治十大重要考點預測

　　考試吧考研題庫(新增數學三) 智能做題首選 立即體驗!