IV. Criminal LawTwo recent events have brought more attention to this problem. One involves the decision not to charge NBC anchor David Gregory with weapons — law violations bearing a potential year-long sentence — for brandishing a 30-round magazine (弹夹) (illegal in D.C.), despite the prosecutor’s statement that the on-air violation was clear; the other involves prosecutors’ rather enthusiastic efforts to prosecute Reddit (一个社会化新闻网站) founder Aaron Swartz for downloading academic journal articles from a closed database, prosecutorial efforts so enthusiastic that Swartz committed suicide in the face of a potential 50-year sentence.Both cases have aroused criticism, and in Swartz’s case even legislation designed to ensure that violating websites’ terms cannot be prosecuted as a crime. But the problem is much broader. Given the vast web of legislation and regulation that exists today, virtually any American is at risk of prosecution should a prosecutor decide that they are, in Robert Jackson’s (原美国司法部长，后 任最高法院法官) words, a person “he should get.”As Tim Wu recounted in 2007, a popular game in the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York was to name a famous person — Mother Teresa (特蕾莎修女——诺贝尔和平奖获得者), or John Lennon (约翰•列侬——披头士乐队成员) — and decide how they could be prosecuted: “It would then be up to the junior prosecutors to figure out a plausible crime for which to indict him or her. The crimes were not usually rape, murder, or other crimes you’d see on a TV show but rather the incredibly broad yet obscure crimes that populate the U.S. Code like a kind of jurisprudential minefield: Crimes like ‘false statements’ (a felony, up to five years), ‘obstructing the mails’ (five years), or ‘false pretenses on the high seas’ (also five years). The trick and the skill lay in finding the more obscure offenses that fit the character of the celebrity and carried the toughest sentences. The, result, however, was inevitable: ‘prison time.’”With so many more federal laws and regulations than were present in Jackson’s day, the task for prosecutors of first choosing the man — or woman — and then pinning the crime on him or her has become much easier.The upshot of comment is that the proliferation of federal criminal statutes and regulations has reached the point that virtually every citizen, knowingly or not (usually not) is potentially at risk for prosecution. That is undoubtedly true, and the consequences are drastic and troubling.63. With the two examples in the 1st paragraph, the author wants to show that ___.64. What is the problem the author thinks referred to in the 2nd paragraph?65. The game described by Tim Wu in the 3rd paragraph is ___.66. The above paragraphs show that the author is ___ with the situation in the US.

A.brandishing magazine is not as serious as downloading thousands of academic articles. B.prosecutors have large discretion in prosecuting people. C.prosecutors in different places have different standard of prosecution. D.Aaron Swartz committed suicide because he did not want to be in the prison.
问题2：
A.Lack of legislation for violating websites’ terms. B.Any American is at risk of prosecution. C.Too many legislation and regulation that exist today. D.Prosecutors’ discretion to charge individuals with crime amplified by huge number of laws.
问题3：
A.used in some places to train junior prosecutors B.finding out what crime Mother Teresa could commit C.finding out what crime John Lennon could commit D.ordinary crimes do not fit either Mother Teresa or John Lennon
问题4：
A.satisfied B.at a loss C.worried D.concerned