2. 考研
  3. Even if we could make it impossible for people to commit crimes, should we? Or would doing so improperly deprive people of their

Even if we could make it impossible for people to commit crimes, should we? Or would doing so improperly deprive people of their

admin2014-09-05  42
问题     Even if we could make it impossible for people to commit crimes, should we? Or would doing so improperly deprive people of their freedom?
    This may sound like a fanciful concern, but it is an increasingly real one. The new federal transportation bill, for example, authorized funding for a program that seeks to prevent the crime of drunken driving not by raising public consciousness or issuing stiffer punishments — but by making the crime practically impossible to commit.【C1】______
    The Dadss program is part of a trend toward what I call the " perfect prevention" of crime; depriving people of the choice to commit an offense in the first place. The federal government’s Intelligent Transportation Systems program, which is creating technology to share data among vehicles and road infrastructure like traffic lights, could make it impossible for a driver to speed or run a red light.【C2】______
    Such technologies force us to reconcile two important interests. On one hand is society’s desire for safety and security. On the other hand is the individual’s right to act freely. Conventional crime prevention balances these interests by allowing individuals the freedom to commit crime, but punishing them if they do.
    The perfect prevention of crime asks us to consider exactly how far individual freedom extends. Does freedom include a "right" to drive drunk, for instance? It is hard to imagine that it does.【C3】______
    For most familiar crimes(murder, robbery, rape, arson), the law requires that the actor have some guilty state of mind, whether it is intent, recklessness or negligence.【C4】______
    In such cases, using technology to prevent the crime entirely would not unduly burden individual freedom; it would simply be effective enforcement of the statute. Because there is no mental state required to be guilty of the offense, the government could require, for instance, that drug manufacturers apply a special tamper-proof coating to all pills, thus making the sale of tainted drugs practically impossible, without intruding on the thoughts of any future seller.
    But because the government must not intrude on people’s thoughts, perfect prevention is a bad fit for most offenses.【C5】______Even if this could be known, perhaps with the help of some sort of neurological scan, collecting such knowledge would violate an individual’s freedom of thought.
    Perfect prevention is a politically attractive approach to crime prevention, and for strict-liability crimes it is permissible and may be good policy if implemented properly. But for most offenses, the threat to individual freedom is too great to justify this approach. This is not because people have a right to commit crimes; they do not. Rather, perfect prevention threatens our right to be free in our thoughts, even when those thoughts turn to crime.
[A]But there is a category of crimes that are forbidden regardless of the actor’s state of mind; so-called strict-liability offenses. One example is the sale of tainted drugs. Another is drunken driving.
[B]The Dadss program, despite its effectiveness in preventing drunk driving, is criticized as a violation of human rights because it monitors drivers’ behavior and controls individual’s free will.
[C]And the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 has already criminalized the development of technologies that can be used to avoid copyright restrictions, making it effectively impossible for most people to illegally share certain copyrighted materials, including video games.
[D]If the actor doesn’t have the guilty state of mind, and he commits crime involuntarily, in this case, the actor will be convicted as innocent.
[E]Perfect prevention of a crime like murder would require the ability to know what a person was thinking in order to determine whether he possessed the relevant culpable mental state.
[F]The program, the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety(Dadss), is developing invehicle technology that automatically checks a driver’s blood-alcohol level and, if that level is above the legal limit, prevents the car from starting.
[G]But what if the government were to add a drug to the water supply that suppressed antisocial urges and thereby reduced the murder rate? This would seem like an obvious violation of our freedom. We need a clear method of distinguishing such cases.
【C3】
选项
答案G
解析 文章第五段作者正面提出了“犯罪完全阻止”概念中隐含的问题，也就是阻止犯罪和侵犯个人权力之间的矛盾。到底一个人的个人权利的界限在哪里?个人有行事自由，但是能否说一个人也有酒驾的自由呢?显然这是不可能的。横线处应该对这个问题展开进一步探讨。如果为了控制犯罪，而对个人行为施加种种限制，又是否合法呢?例如，为了降低社会犯罪率，政府是否能够在人们的饮用水中添加某种抑制反社会冲动的药物呢?这样做，虽然能够保证犯罪率的下降，但是无疑会侵犯个人权利。对于这样模棱两可的法律概念问题，我们需要清晰的界定。横线处填[G]，符合作者行文逻辑。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/dBMRFFFM
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)