2007年研究生入學考試英語模擬試題

Text 2
When it became known some 30 years ago that authorities in the Soviet Union were forcing imprisoned dissidents to take powerful drugs under the guise of treating them for mental illness, Americans condemned such behaviors as barbarous. Next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that centers on whether an insane defendant can be forcibly medicated to make him competent to stand trial. And making its way towards the court is another case with an even starker question: should an insane man be forcibly doped to make him sane enough to be executed?
The case that reaches the court next week concerns Charles Sell, who he lost control at one court hearing, insanely screaming racial abuse and spitting in the face of the judge. In a series of subsequent court hearings and appeals, judges agreed with the hospital’s medical staff that he must be forcibly given antipsychotic drugs for his own safety. Mr Sell appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that forcing him to take the drugs would breach his rights under the amendments of the constitution.
Libertarian groups have taken up Mr Sell’s case as an example of outrageously aggressive government intervention. Mr Sell’s brief to the Supreme Court follows this line of argument, making broad claims that the government’s efforts to inject him with mind-altering drugs is such a breach of his rights to liberty, bodily integrity, freedom of thought, personal autonomy and privacy that it should not be allowed.
The federal government’s lawyers concede that in Mr Sell’s case prosecutors must prove three things: that forcibly medicating him will probably restore him to mental competence; that the side-effects will not be too onerous; and that there is no less-intrusive alternative. If these safeguards are observed, however, the government argues that the public interest in prosecuting serious felonies should outweigh Mr Sell’s right to refuse the medication.
It may seem difficult to believe, but the Supreme Court has never ruled explicitly on this issue. In a 1986 case it said that prisoners so insane that they could not understand the punishment they were about to suffer or why they were being punished could not be executed. And it has also ruled that prisoners can be forcibly medicated in their own interest. But these two rulings fit together awkwardly. Is it ever in the interest of a prisoner to be forced to take drugs that may, temporarily, make him sane enough to be executed?
The issue may be an ethical hot potato, but it is far from academic. Medication, both forced and voluntary, is widespread throughout America’s prison system. Many of those on death row suffer from serious mental illness, and some of these are on medication. The court’s critics claim that, in reality, it has often turned a blind eye to the execution of the insane simply by refusing to hear their appeals.

26. What is implied in the first sentence?
[A] The Supreme Court strongly opposes forced medication.
[B] Medication may be unduly imposed upon insane victims.
[C] Prisoners have no constitutional rights to file their appeals.
[D] American defendants enjoy a higher degree of civilization.

27. The author mentions the case of Mr. Sell to
[A] justify his desperation in the face of outrageous violation of his rights.
[B] criticize the Supreme Court’s hesitation to allow voluntary medication.
[C] expose the side-effects of less-intrusive powerful drugs administered.
[D] call attention to the overlooked rights of insane defendants.

28. The views of libertarian groups and the federal government on forcible medication are
[A] identical.
[B] complementary.
[C] opposite.
[D] overlapping.

29. Which of the following best defines the word “aggressive” (Line 3, Paragraph 4)
[A] oppressive.
[B] compulsory.
[C] reassuring.
[D] explicit.

30. This text may most probably be extracted from an article entitled
[A] “Forcible Medication: A New Insanity Defence.”
[B] “A Conflict between Individual Rights and Collective Rights.”
[C] “Mr Sell, a Prisoner on Death Row: Mad but Alive.”
[D] “Insane Defendants who can forcibly be Convicted and Executed.”