The image was riveting, as justice John Paul Stevens, a Chicago native, presented it. A gang member and his father are hanging out near Wrigley Field. Are they there "to rob an unsuspecting fan or just to get a glimpse of Sammy Sosa leaving the ball park?" A police officer has no idea, but under Chicago's anti-gang law, the cop must order them to disperse. With Stevens writing for a 6-to-3 majority, the Supreme Court last week struck down Chicago's sweeping statute, which had sparked 42,000 arrests in its three years of enforcement.
The decision was a blow to advocates of get-tough crime policies. But in a widely noted concurring opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor suggested that a less draconian approach — distinguishing gang members from innocent bystanders — might pass constitutional muster. New language could target loiterers "with no apparent purpose other than to establish control over identifiable areas, to intimidate others from entering those areas or to conceal illegal activities," she wrote. Chicago officials vowed to draft a new measure. "We will go back and correct it and then move forward," said Mayor Richard Daley.
Chicago officials, along with the League of Cities and 31 states that sided with them in court, might do well to look at one state where anti-gang loitering prosecutions have withstood constitutional challenges: California. The state has two antiloitering statutes on the books, aimed at people intending to commit specific crimes — prostitution and drug dealing. In addition, a number of local prosecutors are waging war against gangs by an innovative use of the public-nuisance laws.
In cities such as Los Angeles and San Jose, prosecutors have sought injunctions against groups of people suspected of gang activity. "The officers in the streets know the gang members and gather physical evidence for lengthy court hearings," says Los Angeles prosecutor Martin Vranicar. If the evidence is enough to convince a judge, an injunction is issued to prohibit specific behavior — such as carrying cell phones or pagers or blocking sidewalk passage — in defined geographical areas. "It works instantly," says San Jose city attorney Joan Gallo, who successfully defended the tactic before the California Supreme Court. "A few days after the injunctions, children are playing on streets where they never were before."
So far, only a few hundred gang members have been targeted, out of an estimated 150,000 in Los Angeles alone. But experts say last week's decision set the parameters for sharper measures. Says Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe: "It just means they have to use a scalpel rather than an invisible mallet."
1.What does the author intend to illustrate with the example of the gang member and his father?
A.How the antiloitering law works? B.How to maintain charming image?
C.How tough the crime polices were? D.Why Chicago's sweeping statute stroke down?
2.What can we infer from the first two paragraphs?
A.Chicago's antiloitering law shouldn't be struck down.
B.The cop was entitled to send the gangs away.
C.Chicago officials yielded to the result of striking down the law.
D.Antiloitering Law in Chicago was much too severe for the majority.
3.The third and fourth paragraphs suggest that_______.
A.the League of Cities and 31 states should work with Chicago officials
B.the injunctions in some cities brought back the safety on the street
C.California successfully starts the battle against the gangs
D.the police officers shoulder more responsibility than before
4.What does the author mean by "It just means they have to use a scalpel rather than an invisible mallet" (Last line, Para. 5)?
A.The gang members should be given a get-tough attitude in the long run.
B.The targeted gang members rather than all of them should be given a get-tough treatment.
C.A scalpel can cut off the tumors of the society while the invisible mallet fails to.
D.A scalpel is more powerful than the invisible mallet.
5.Which of the following is true according to the passage?
A.Chicago's sweeping statute was struck down for its involving too many arrests.
B.Chicago officials still maintained their get-tough crime policies.
C.It was not safe for children to play on the street.
D.California used a scalpel while other states used an invisible mallet to cope with the gangs.
长难例句分析
［长难例句］Chicago officials, along with the League of Cities and 31 states that sided with them in court, might do well to look at one state where anti-gang loitering prosecutions have withstood constitutional challenges: California.
［结构分析］along with the League of Cities and 31 states在句子中作伴随状语，其中that引导的定语从句修饰the League of Cities and 31 states；主句中where引导的从句修饰state。
［参考译文］只要芝加哥官员以及那些在法庭上支持他们的城市联盟和31个州，去看看那个州——加州——的情况就可以处理好他们的问题。加州的反犯罪集团闲荡起诉案已经受住了宪法的挑战。
全文参考译文
正如芝加哥法官John Paul Stevens所描述的那样，这种景象是非常吸引人的。一个犯罪团伙成员和他的父亲在里格利球场附近闲荡，他们在那儿“是想抢劫一个毫无戒心的球迷呢，还是只为了目睹一下正在离场的塞米索萨棒球队的风采呢？”警官不得而知，但是根据芝加哥反犯罪团伙法，警察必须命令他们散开。鉴于Stevens法官的书面要求以6比3的多数通过，上个星期最高法院废除了芝加哥的肃清法令。这项法令在三年的实施时间里，引发了4.2万起逮捕案。
这一决定对于那些主张严厉惩治犯罪的人来说，无疑是当头一棒。但是根据一种相当著名且普遍赞同的观点，法官Sandra Day O'Connor认为，采取一种不太严厉的做法——把犯罪团伙成员与无辜的旁观者加以区分的方法——可能更符合宪法的规定。她这样写道，议案中使用的新的措辞可能会把那些“除了控制可识别区域、恐吓他人不得进入该区域或隐瞒非法活动外没有其他明确目的”的闲荡者作为目标。芝加哥官员发誓要起草一项新措施。Richard Daley市长说：“我们要回过头去对其进行纠正，然后再继续往前走。”
只要芝加哥官员以及那些在法庭上支持他们的城市联盟和31个州，去看看那个州——加州——的情况就可以处理好他们的问题。加州的反犯罪团伙闲荡起诉案已经受住了宪法的挑战。这个州已将两部禁止闲荡的法律编辑成册，该法律主要针对那些意欲卖淫和贩毒等特种罪行的人。另外，当地一些检察官正创新性地应用公共妨害法向犯罪团伙宣战。
在洛杉矶和圣何塞这样的城市，检察官已要求对那些被怀疑有团伙犯罪行为的犯罪团伙成员实行禁令。洛杉矶检察官Martin Vranicar说：“大街上巡逻的警察熟悉犯罪团伙的成员，并为漫长的法庭审讯收集物证。”如果证据能足以使法官信服，就会颁布禁令，在特定区域里禁止某些特定的行为——比如携带手机或寻呼机或阻碍行人通道。曾在加利福尼亚最高法庭上成功为泰迪公司（The Tactic）进行辩护的圣何塞市律师Joan Gallo说：“这马上就奏效了。禁止令颁布几天之后，孩子们就开始在他们以前未去过的大街上玩耍了。”
据估计，洛杉矶15万个犯罪团伙成员中，至今只有几百人被定为目标对象。但是专家们表示，上周的决定为实施更为严厉的措施确立了范围。哈佛大学法律教授Laurence Tribe说：“这只是意味，他们必须用手术刀而不是用无形的槌棒来解决这一问题了。”
题目答案与解析
1.作者引用一个犯罪团伙成员和他的父亲的例子，想说明什么？
A.禁止闲荡法令是如何运作的？ B.怎样保持迷人的形象？
C.犯罪政策非常强硬？ D.为什么芝加哥的肃清法被废除？
【答案】A
【解析】属推理判断题。文中对应信息but under Chicago's anti-gang law, the cop must order them to disperse，从第一段我们可以看出作者在介绍芝加哥的“禁止闲荡法令”是如何运作及被解除的。
2.从前两段，我们可以推导出什么？
A.芝加哥的禁止闲荡法令不应被废除。
B.警察有权力驱散黑帮。
C.芝加哥官员接受了废除法律的结果。
D.对于大多数人来说，芝加哥的禁止闲荡法太严厉了。
【答案】D
【解析】属推理判断题。第一段和第二段主要介绍芝加哥解除了“禁止闲荡法令”。从第一段which had sparked 42,000 arrests in its three years of enforcement，我们可以看出这一法令是非常严厉的；从第二段But in a widely noted concurring opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor suggested that a less draconian approach — distinguishing gang members from innocent bystanders — might pass constitutional muster我们可以看出，一项较宽松的法令即将出台。从这些地方我们可作出判断。
3.从第三段和第四段可以推断出________。
A.城市联盟和31个州应该和芝加哥官员一起合作
B.禁令使一些城市的街道重新变得安全起来
C.加利福尼亚成功地开启了打击街头团伙的战斗
D.警察应该比以前更负责任
【答案】C
【解析】属推理判断题。第三段和第四段主要介绍了加利福尼亚州是如何与街头团伙行为作斗争的。
4.作者说“这只是意味，他们必须用手术刀而不是用无形的槌棒来解决这一问题了”（第五段最后一行），这句话是什么意思？
A.从长期来看，应该对犯罪团伙采取越来越强硬的态度。
B.对待目标犯罪团伙的态度应该比其他犯罪团伙的要强硬。
C.手术刀可以切除社会的肿瘤，但是无形的槌棒却做不到。
D.手术刀比无形的槌棒更有力。
【答案】B
【解析】属推理判断题。这篇文章中存在对比：芝加哥的肃清法令sparked 42,000 arrests in its three years of enforcement，重在大范围的打击；加利福尼亚州only a few hundred gang members have been targeted, out of an estimated 150,000 in Los Angeles alone，重在小范围的清除。
5.从本文内容看，下面哪个选项是正确的？
A.芝加哥的肃清法被废除是因为根据该法令逮捕的人太多了。
B.芝加哥官员仍然坚持强硬打击犯罪的政策。
C.孩子在街上玩耍不安全。
D.加利福尼亚使用手术刀，而其他州却使用无形的槌棒来打击罪犯团伙。
【答案】D
【解析】属推理判断题。分析同第四题。
