UC知道请问大家一道GMAT逻辑题
来源：百度知道 编辑：UC知道 时间：2024/05/13 11:09:30
Some people assert that prosecutors should be allowed to introduce illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials if the judge and jury can be persuaded that the arresting officer was not aware of violating or did not intend to violate the law when seizing the evidence. Unfortunately, this proposed “good-faith exception” would weaken everyone’s Constitutional protection, lead to less-careful police practices, encourage illegal searches and seizure, and encourage law enforcement officers to lie in court.
The strongest argument for maintaining the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence assumes that:
(A)
Defendants in criminal cases should enjoy greater protection from the law than other citizens.
(B)
Law enforcement authorities need to be encouraged to pursue criminals assiduously.
(C)
The legal system will usually find ways to ensure that real crimes do not go unprosecuted.
(D)
The exclusion currently
The strongest argument for maintaining the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence assumes that:
(A)
Defendants in criminal cases should enjoy greater protection from the law than other citizens.
(B)
Law enforcement authorities need to be encouraged to pursue criminals assiduously.
(C)
The legal system will usually find ways to ensure that real crimes do not go unprosecuted.
(D)
The exclusion currently
D is right.
read the question carefully——which is "the strongest argument for maintaining the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence" ? this argument should be oppsite to the "some people" who advocate allowing illegally obtained evidence.
from the article, maintaining the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence can protect people's Constitutional and prevent unlawful searches and seizures, that is what the option D says.