Though sometimes too lazy to work as hard as her sisters, Linda has a more avid fondness for the limelight.
A.mercurial B.gallant C.ardent D.frugal
有疑问？点此联系我们
收藏该题
查看答案
Though sometimes too lazy to work as hard as her sisters, Linda has a more avid fondness for the limelight.
IX. Forensic AppraisalAs a categorical matter, the science of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) can no longer support a finding of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in triad-only (三联征) cases — cases which represent a significant number of SBS prosecutions. Put simply, here change has raised the real possibility of past error.In the past, the mere presence of retinal hemorrhaging, (视网膜出血) subdural hematoma (硬膜下血肿), and cerebral edema (脑水肿) was taken to mean that a baby had been shaken hard enough to produce what were conceptualized as whiplash forces. According to the conventional understanding of SBS, the application of rotational acceleration and deceleration forces to the infant’s head causes the brain to rotate in the skull. Abrupt deceleration allows continuing brain rotation until bridging veins are stretched and ruptured, causing a thin layer of subdural haemorrhage on the surface of the brain. Retinal hemorrhages were thought to result from a similar causal mechanism. Most significantly, the triad of symptoms was believed to be distinctly characteristic of violent shaking.Despite its lingering presence in the popular imagination, the scientific underpinnings of SBS have crumbled over the past decade as the medical establishment has deliberately discarded a diagnosis defined by shaking. Although no single nomenclature has emerged in its place, doctors are now in widespread agreement that SBS is an unhelpful characterization, and that the presence of retinal hemorrhages and subdural hematoma cannot conclusively prove that injury was inflicted.Although it may be tempting to conclude simply that science evolves, and leave the inquiry there, the story is more complex; an object lesson in scientific overreaching and the challenge of correction.A number of forces coalesced to transform SBS from a certain diagnosis into its current state of flux. Most importantly, in the mid- to late-1990s, medical research, including the SBS literature, became subject to a heightened level of scrutiny. The new evidence-based medicine standards required doctors to derive their research from methods that are scientific and statistically rigorous. The change triggered a review of the evidence supporting a number of areas of medicine, and included a comprehensive effort to examine the science underlying SBS.The application of the evidence-based framework to the SBS literature resulted in a remarkable determination: the medical literature published prior to 1998 contained inadequate scientific evidence to come to a firm conclusion on most aspects of causation, diagnosis, treatment, or any other matters pertaining to SBS.83. One learns from the paragraphs that SBS is ___.84. The presence of the following syndromes makes the doctors believe that a baby was shaken hard, except ___.85. According to the last paragraph, the following statement is NOT correct ___.86. One can foresee that after the recent research result based on evidence, ___.
I want to speak out1. the opinion you want to speak out2. the reasons why you want to speak out
In California, as in most death penalty jurisdictions, to sentence a defendant to death the fact-finder must make three determinations: (1) that the defendant committed a first-degree murder; (2) that the defendant meets the statutory criteria for death-eligibility; and (3) that, in light of the aggravating and mitigating factors, the defendant deserves the death penalty. In California, the first two determinations are made together at the guilt phase of the trial when the fact-finder decides whether the defendant is guilty of first-degree murder and whether any charged special circumstance is true. If the defendant is found guilty and a special circumstance is found true, the case proceeds to a penalty phase, where the fact-finder determines the defendant’s sentence. At the penalty phase, the fact-finder is directed to take into account a list of eleven factors, the first of which is “the circumstances of the crime of which the defendant was convicted in the present proceeding and the existence of any special circumstances found to be true.” The fact-finder will impose the death penalty if the fact-finder concludes that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances. The list of factors does not consist of propositional questions but instead directs the sentencer to consider certain subjects, and the sentencer is not required to make findings as to any of the factors. Nor is the sentencer limited by the direction to weigh aggravation against mitigation; rather, “each juror is free to assign whatever moral or sympathetic value he deems appropriate to each and all of the various factors he is permitted to consider” and to decide whether death is “the appropriate penalty under all the circumstances.”The breadth of death-eligibility under the California scheme is a product of the interplay between the definition of first-degree murder and the definition of the special circumstances. At present, there are twenty-one categories of first-degree murder, divided into two groups: eight categories of malice-murder, and thirteen categories of felony-murder. There are thirty-three separately enumerated special circumstances that render a first-degree murderer death-eligible, including twelve felony-murder special circumstances. The California Supreme Court has held unconstitutional on vagueness grounds the “heinous, atrocious or cruel” special circumstance, but all of the remaining special circumstances call for a relatively narrow factual determination by the fact-finder, in contrast with the more open-ended eligibility factors used in other states. Thirty of the remaining thirty-two special circumstances — all but the “prior murder” circumstance, and, in rare cases, the multiple-murder circumstance — single out purportedly aggravating circumstances of the crime itself.
Steven F. Shatz, The Eighth Amendment, the Death Penalty and OrdinaryRobbery-Burglary Murderers: A California Case Study41. Who is the fact-finder?42. In the context of the paragraphs, who is the sentencer?43. “The breadth of death-eligibility under the California scheme is a product of the interplay between the definition of first-degree murder and the definition of the special circumstances.” This sentence means ___.44. According to the last paragraph, how many of the felony-murder special circumstances is (are) not death-eligible?45. In California, the trial of a criminal case is divided into two stages: ___.Plato had an essentially antagonistic view of art and the artist, although he approved of certain religious and moralistic kinds of art.
Exploration of the Solar System is continuing, and at the present rate of progress all the planets ______within the next 50 years.