2014考研英语阅读理解基础阶段练习（四）

With Chicago's antiloitering law struck down, California is a model for how to fight street gangs

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."

注(1)：本文选自By Margot Hornblower/Los Angeles With reporting by Timothy Roche/Chicago and Andrea Sachs/New York Time; 06/21/99, Vol. 153 Issue 24, p55, 2/3p, 1bw
注(2)：本文习题命题模仿对象2004年真题Text 2。

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” (The Last Line, Paragraph 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 text?
[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.