We threaten punishments in order to deter crime.We impose them not only to make the threats credible but also as retribution (justice)for the crimes that were not deterred.Threats and punishments are necessary to deter and deterrence is a sufficient practical justification for them.Although penalties can be unwise，repulsive，or inappropriate，and those punished can be pitiable，in a sense the infliction of legal punishment on a guilty person cannot be unjust.By committing the crime，the criminal volunteered to assume the risk of receiving a legal punishment that he could have avoided by not committing the crime.

　　There remain，however，two moral objections.The penalty may be regarded as always excessive as retribution and always morally degrading.To regard the death penalty as always excessive，one must believe that no crime—no matter how heinous—could possibly justify capital punishment.Such a belief can be neither confirmed nor refuted;it is an article of faith.Alternatively，one may believe that everybody，the murderer no less than the victim，has a natural right to life.The law therefore should not deprive anyone of life.

　　Justice Brennan has insisted that the death penalty is “uncivilized，”“inhuman，”inconsistent with “human dignity”and with “the sanctity of life，”that it “treats members of the human race as nonhumans，as objects to be toyed with and discarded，”that it is “uniquely degrading to human dignity”and “by its very nature，involves a denial of the executed person‘s humanity.” Justice Brennan does not say why he thinks execution“uncivilized.”Hitherto most civilizations have had the death penalty，although it has been discarded in Western Europe.

　　By“degrading，”Justice Brennan seems to mean that execution degrades the executed convicts.Yet philosophers have insisted that，when deserved，execution，far from degrading the executed convict，affirms his humanity by affirming his rationality and his responsibility for his actions.They thought that execution，when deserved，is required for the sake of the convict‘s dignity.Common sense indicates that it cannot be death—our common fate—that is inhuman.Therefore，Justice Brennan must mean that death degrades when it comes not as a natural or accidental event，but as a deliberate social imposition.The murderer learns through his punishment that his fellow men have found him unworthy of living;that because he has murdered，he is being expelled from the community of the living.This degradation is self-inflicted.By murdering，the murderer has so dehumanized himself that he cannot remain among the living.

　　Execution of those who have committed heinous murders may deter only one murder per year.If it does，it seems quite warranted.It is also the only fitting retribution for murder I can think of.

　　1.The author‘s attitude towards death penalty is____.

　　[A] negative [B] positive [C] impartial [D] ambiguous

　　2.It is implied that infliction of legal punishment is justified because the offender____.

　　[A] spares no effort in holding himself back from the criminal action

　　[B] shows no regard for the dignity of the victim

　　[C] is well aware of the consequence of his action

　　[D] can be deterred by no legal punishment whatsoever

　　3.By saying that“most civilizations have had the death penalty”，the author really means that____.

　　[A] civilization in Western European countries is degenerating

　　[B] the assertion that capital punishment is uncivilized is arbitrary

　　[C] death penalty is an effective legal institution for defending civilization

　　[D] being uncivilized is not equivalent to being inhuman

　　4.Justice Brennan would agree that____.

　　[A] death in any way means a denial of a person‘s humanity

　　[B] the society has no right to take an individual‘s life

　　[C] murders should be educated rather than punished

　　[D] degrading a convict is nothing more than executing him

　　5.According to philosophers，death penalty____.

　　[A] should be executed with due regard for human dignity

　　[B] should not be given in a way that degrades the murder

　　[C] meets the murder‘s need for claiming back his humanity

　　[D] serious crimes deserve cruel or even inhuman retribution

　　參考答案：

　　1.[B] 意為：贊同。作者在第一段指出，雖然懲罰可能是不理智、令人厭惡或不合適的，那些受到懲治的人是值得憐憫的，但是對(duì)一個(gè)罪犯實(shí)施法律懲處在某種意義上不可能是不公正的。作者在第二段駁斥了兩種反對(duì)懲罰 (包括死刑)的觀點(diǎn)，并在第三、第四段駁斥了Brennan法官的觀點(diǎn)。最后一段提到，對(duì)那些犯有惡意殺人罪的犯人施以死刑也許每年只能終止一場(chǎng)殺人案，如果是那樣的話，實(shí)施死刑似乎也是值得的，這也是我能想像的對(duì)殺人罪惟一合適的懲罰�？梢�，作者是贊同實(shí)施死刑的。[C]意為：客觀的。D]意為：模棱兩可的。

　　2.[C] 意為：允分意識(shí)到了其行為后果。第一段最后一句提到，在決定犯罪時(shí)，罪犯就自愿承擔(dān)接受法律懲罰的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，而他是本來(lái)可以通過(guò)不去犯罪來(lái)避免這種懲罰的。這就是作者認(rèn)為懲罰不可能是不公正的理由。[A]意為：根本不想阻止自己犯罪。[B]意為：根本不尊重受害者的尊嚴(yán)。[D]意為：根本不可能被任何法律懲罰制止。

　　3.[B] 意為：關(guān)于死刑是不文明的論斷是武斷的(或沒(méi)道理的)。第三段提到Brennan法官的觀點(diǎn)，在他看來(lái)，死刑是“不文明的”表現(xiàn)，雖然他并沒(méi)有說(shuō)明其中的理由。但是，作者在第三段最后一句指出，迄今為止，許多文明社會(huì)都實(shí)行死刑，雖然歐洲廢除了死刑。言外之意是，實(shí)施死刑并不是區(qū)分社會(huì)是否文明的標(biāo)志。[A]意為：西歐國(guó)家的文明正在走向沒(méi)落。[C]意為：死刑是保護(hù)文明的一種有效法律體制。[D]意為：不文明不等于不人道。

　　4.[B] 意為：社會(huì)沒(méi)有權(quán)利剝奪一個(gè)人的性命。第三段提到，Brennan法官堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為，死刑是“不文明的”、“非人性的”，是與“人的尊嚴(yán)”和“生命的神圣”觀念不一致的，它“把人類的成員不當(dāng)做人來(lái)看，而是當(dāng)做可以隨意玩耍和丟棄的物品”，這是“對(duì)人的尊嚴(yán)的特有的貶低”，因此“就其本質(zhì)而言，是對(duì)被判死刑者人性的否定”。這里，Brennan法官始終強(qiáng)調(diào)了生命(權(quán)利)的不可侵犯性。事實(shí)上，Brennan法官的觀點(diǎn)就是第二段提到的第二類人的觀點(diǎn)，參閱第二段最后兩句。[A]意為：任何方式的死亡都是對(duì)一個(gè)人人性的否定。Brennan法官并沒(méi)有提到如何看待自然死亡或偶然死亡。[D]意為：貶斥一名罪犯就等于是將他處以死刑。

　　5.[C] 意為：滿足了殺人犯索回其人性的需要。根據(jù)第四段，在哲學(xué)家看來(lái)，如果死刑是罪有應(yīng)得，它就不會(huì)起到貶低被執(zhí)行死刑者的作用，相反它會(huì)通過(guò)確認(rèn)其行動(dòng)的理性和責(zé)任來(lái)確認(rèn)其人性。他們認(rèn)為，實(shí)行罪有應(yīng)得的死刑的目的是為了維護(hù)罪犯的尊嚴(yán)。這里所謂“確認(rèn)其行動(dòng)的理性和責(zé)任”，實(shí)際上指讓罪犯承擔(dān)其殺人的責(zé)任，也即將他處以死刑。因此，這里的邏輯是，將罪犯處以死刑就是還給他通過(guò)殺人喪失的人性，也就是維護(hù)其人性尊嚴(yán)。[A]意為：應(yīng)該在充分尊重人性尊嚴(yán)的前提下實(shí)施。[B]意為：不應(yīng)該以貶低兇手的方式實(shí)施。[D]意為：重罪應(yīng)該施以殘酷、甚至不人道的懲罰。

　　編輯推薦：

　　2015年考研復(fù)習(xí)如何突破六大誤區(qū)

　　2015考研英語(yǔ)5500大綱詞匯匯編(帶下載)

　　考試吧獨(dú)家策劃：2015年考研大綱及解析專題

　　2007-2014年考研政治真題及答案|解析|估分|下載

　　考試吧考研題庫(kù)(新增數(shù)學(xué)三) 智能做題首選 立即體驗(yàn)!