UC知道英文句子理解：Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that
来源：百度知道 编辑：UC知道 时间：2024/06/01 18:12:45
原句是：Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested, but in attributing a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior, the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.
我的疑问如下：Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested（辩护律师说他们的客户的不当行为是来自对摄入某种食物的反应。那么他们的客户应该是食物的摄入者，即吃东西的人吧？！）, but in attributing a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior（但是把对食物过敏作为犯罪行为的起因）, the perpetrators（犯人。被告人？吃东西的人？还是提供食物或准备食物的人？） are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions（实际上是告诉 perpetrators 他们不必为他们的行为负责任）.
...the perpetrators are ... told that they are not responsible for their actions. 这里用的是被动语态，似乎并不是 the perpetrators "自己说他们是因为食物过敏"，而是他们被告知（或者被暗示），他们不必为自己的行为负责任吧？！
我的疑问如下：Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients' misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested（辩护律师说他们的客户的不当行为是来自对摄入某种食物的反应。那么他们的客户应该是食物的摄入者，即吃东西的人吧？！）, but in attributing a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior（但是把对食物过敏作为犯罪行为的起因）, the perpetrators（犯人。被告人？吃东西的人？还是提供食物或准备食物的人？） are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions（实际上是告诉 perpetrators 他们不必为他们的行为负责任）.
...the perpetrators are ... told that they are not responsible for their actions. 这里用的是被动语态，似乎并不是 the perpetrators "自己说他们是因为食物过敏"，而是他们被告知（或者被暗示），他们不必为自己的行为负责任吧？！
辩护律师的client指的就是perpetrators，律师为这些人辩护，说他们行为不当是因为吃了东西后有不良反应，而这些人自己也说他们是因为食物过敏，从而不需要对自己的行为负责。
补充回答：
是被动语态，我看错了，不好意思。
辩护律师说他的clients的行为不当是因为吃了东西后有不良反应，这就等于告诉这些perpetrators他们不必为自己的行为负责。
因此clients与perpetrators仍然是一致的。