外贸业务员基础理论
外贸业务员基础理论
Text 3
After decades of exile from US courts, the science of lie detection is gaining new acceptance. But the federal government wants to put a stop to it, and the US Supreme Court has now agreed to consider a request from the Department of Justice to bar the technology from military courts.
Uncertainties surround the science of lie detection, which uses a device called polygraph. In 1991, President George Bush banned lie detector evidence in military courts. But that ban has since been overturned by the US Court of Military Appeals, which ruled that it restricts defendants’ rights to present evidence of their innocence.
In the past two years, some federal courts have also ruled ’that polygraph evidence can be heard. This follows a decision by the Supreme Court in 1993 that gave federal judges more discretion to decide on the admissibility of evidence.
A polygraph consists of monitors for pulse rate, sweating and breathing rate. The device is supposed to uncover lies by recording increases in these measures as the subject answers questions.
Critics have always argued that cunning defendants can control their physiological responses and sway polygraph results. But supporters of the technique argue that recent research has found it to be reliable. A psychologist named Charles Honts at a state university in Idaho, points to laboratory studies, some of them being his own, in which student-subjects were offered cash to sway the test results.
This argument is rejected by Leonard Saxe, a psychologist at a Boston university. "There is a huge difference between students in a lab and a defendant," he says. Guilty defendants have time in which to rehearse their lies, and can even come to believe them to be true.
Saxe believes that the entire theoretical basis of lie detection is invalid. "It assumes you will be more nervous lying than telling the truth." But he says that for some people lies are trivial, while certain truths can be hard to swallow.
David Faigman of the University of California says that if the Supreme Court upholds the military appeal courts decision to allow polygraph evidence, polygraph bans would be overturned in federal courts across US. "That will put a big burden on judges to understand the science, and lead to a lot more expert testimony in the courts," he predicts. The justice department fears that this will greatly increase the cost of trials.
A:Lie detection evidence has been barred in US military courts since President Bush banned it in 1991 B:Really guilty defendants are more clever than college students C:Leonard Saxe believes that people are more nervous lying than telling the truth D:David Faigman is against the use of lie detection evidence in US courts
Text 3
After decades of exile from US courts, the science of lie detection is gaining new acceptance. But the federal government wants to put a stop to it, and the US Supreme Court has now agreed to consider a request from the Department of Justice to bar the technology from military courts.
Uncertainties surround the science of lie detection, which uses a device called polygraph. In 1991, President George Bush banned lie detector evidence in military courts. But that ban has since been overturned by the US Court of Military Appeals, which ruled that it restricts defendants’ rights to present evidence of their innocence.
In the past two years, some federal courts have also ruled ’that polygraph evidence can be heard. This follows a decision by the Supreme Court in 1993 that gave federal judges more discretion to decide on the admissibility of evidence.
A polygraph consists of monitors for pulse rate, sweating and breathing rate. The device is supposed to uncover lies by recording increases in these measures as the subject answers questions.
Critics have always argued that cunning defendants can control their physiological responses and sway polygraph results. But supporters of the technique argue that recent research has found it to be reliable. A psychologist named Charles Honts at a state university in Idaho, points to laboratory studies, some of them being his own, in which student-subjects were offered cash to sway the test results.
This argument is rejected by Leonard Saxe, a psychologist at a Boston university. "There is a huge difference between students in a lab and a defendant," he says. Guilty defendants have time in which to rehearse their lies, and can even come to believe them to be true.
Saxe believes that the entire theoretical basis of lie detection is invalid. "It assumes you will be more nervous lying than telling the truth." But he says that for some people lies are trivial, while certain truths can be hard to swallow.
David Faigman of the University of California says that if the Supreme Court upholds the military appeal courts decision to allow polygraph evidence, polygraph bans would be overturned in federal courts across US. "That will put a big burden on judges to understand the science, and lead to a lot more expert testimony in the courts," he predicts. The justice department fears that this will greatly increase the cost of trials.
A:Because lie detection is surrounded by uncertainties B:Because it restricts the defendants' rights to prove that they are innocent C:Because 12 states also allow lie detection evidence to be heard in courts D:Because federal judges from the Supreme Court make their decisions on the basis of lie detection evidence
After decades of exile from U.S. courts, the science of lie detection is gaining new acceptance. But the federal government wants to put a stop to it, and the U.S. Supreme Court has now agreed to consider a request from the Department of Justice to bar the technology from military courts.
Uncertainties surround the science of lie detection, which uses a device called polygraph. In 1991 President George Bush banned lie detector evidence in military courts. But that ban has since been overturned by the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, which ruled that it restricts defendants’ rights to present evidence of their innocence.
In the past two years, some federal courts have also ruled that polygraph evidence can be heard. This follows a decision by the Supreme Court in 1993 that gave federal judges more discretion to decide on the admissibility of evidence.
A polygraph consists of monitors for pulse rate, sweating and breathing rate. The device is supposed to uncover lies by recording increases in these measures as the subject answers questions.
Critics have always argued that cunning defendants can control their physiological responses and sway polygraph results. But supporters of the technique argue that recent research has found it to be reliable. A psychologist named Charles Honts at a state university in Idaho, points to lab oratory studies, some of them being his own, in which student-subjects were offered cash to sway the test results.
This argument is rejected by Leonard Saxe, a psychologist at a Boston university. "There is a huge difference between students in a lab and a defendant," he says. Guilty defendants have time in which to rehearse their lies, and can even come to believe them to be true.
Saxe believes that the entire theoretical basis of lie detection is invalid. "It assumes you will be more nervous lying than telling the truth." But he says that for some people lies are trivial, while certain truth can be hard to swallow.
David Faigrnan of the University of California says that if the Supreme Court upholds the military appeal court’s decision to allow polygraph evidence, polygraph bans. would be overturned in federal courts across U. S. "That will put a big burden on judges to understand the science, and lead to a lot more’ expert testimony in the courts," he predicts. The justice department fears that this will greatly increase the cost of trials.
Which of the following statements is true according to the passage
A:Lie detection evidence has been barred in U.S. military courts since President Bush banned it in 1991. B:Really guilty defendants are cleverer than college students. C:Leonard Saxe believes that people are more nervous lying than telling the truth. D:David Faigman is against the use of lie detection evidence in U.S. courts.
Violent criminals with something to hide have more reason than ever to be paranoid about a tap on the shoulder which could send them to jail. Queensland police are working through a backlog of unsolved murders with some dramatic success. Greater cooperation between the public and various law enforcement agencies is playing a role, but new genetic-testing techniques are the real key to providing the vital evidence to mount a prosecution.
Evidence left behind at the scene of any murder is guaranteed to outlive the person who left it. A blood, saliva or tissue sample in the size of a pin, kept dry and out of sunlight, will last several thousand years. From it, scientific analysis now can tell accurately the sex of the person who left it.
When matched against a sample from a crime suspect, it can indicate with million-to-one certainty whether the samples come from the same source. Only twins share identical DNA. So precise is the technology if the biological parents of a suspect agree to provide a sample, forensic scientists can work out the rest for themselves without cooperation from the suspect.
Queensland forensic scientists have been using the DNA testing technology since 1992, and last year they were recognized internationally for their competence in positive individual identification. That is part of the reason 20 of Queensland’s most puzzling unsolved murders dating to 1932 are being ac timely investigated. There also have been several recent arrests for unsolved murders.
Forensic evidence was instrumental in charges being laid over the bashing death of waitress Tasha Douty on Brampton Island in 1983. Douty’s blood-splattered, naked body was found on a nude sunbathing beach at Dinghy Bay on the island. Footprints in the sand indicated that the killer had grappled with the 21-year-old mother who had fled up the beach before being caught and beaten to death.
According to Leo Freney, the supervising forensic scientist at the John Tonge Centre at Brisbane’s Griffith University, DNA testing has become an invaluable tool for police, its use is in identifying and rejecting suspects. In fact, he says, it eliminates more people than it convicts.
" It is easily as good as fingerprints for the purpose of identification, " he says. "In the case of violent crime it is better than fingerprints. You can’t innocently explain things like blood and semen at a crime scene where you may be able to innocently explain fingerprints. " In Queensland, a person who has been arrested on suspicion of an offence can be taken before a magistrate and ordered to provide a sample of body fluid by :force if necessary.
What can be inferred from the text
A:Criminal evidence could be kept well in dry and warm places. B:The high accuracy of genetic testing lies in DNA’s uniqueness. C:DNA testing provides the vital evidence in Tasha Douty Case. D:Fingerprints are better than DNA to convict suspects.
Text 3 After decades of exile from US courts, the science of lie detection is gaining new acceptance. But the federal government wants to put a stop to it, and the US Supreme Court has now agreed to consider a request from the Department of Justice to bar the technology from military courts. Uncertainties surround the science of lie detection, which uses a device called polygraph. In 1991, President George Bush banned lie detector evidence in military courts. But that ban has since been overturned by the US Court of Military Appeals, which ruled that it restricts defendants’ rights to present evidence of their innocence. In the past two years, some federal courts have also ruled ’that polygraph evidence can be heard. This follows a decision by the Supreme Court in 1993 that gave federal judges more discretion to decide on the admissibility of evidence. A polygraph consists of monitors for pulse rate, sweating and breathing rate. The device is supposed to uncover lies by recording increases in these measures as the subject answers questions. Critics have always argued that cunning defendants can control their physiological responses and sway polygraph results. But supporters of the technique argue that recent research has found it to be reliable. A psychologist named Charles Honts at a state university in Idaho, points to laboratory studies, some of them being his own, in which student-subjects were offered cash to sway the test results. This argument is rejected by Leonard Saxe, a psychologist at a Boston university. "There is a huge difference between students in a lab and a defendant," he says. Guilty defendants have time in which to rehearse their lies, and can even come to believe them to be true. Saxe believes that the entire theoretical basis of lie detection is invalid. "It assumes you will be more nervous lying than telling the truth." But he says that for some people lies are trivial, while certain truths can be hard to swallow. David Faigman of the University of California says that if the Supreme Court upholds the military appeal courts decision to allow polygraph evidence, polygraph bans would be overturned in federal courts across US. "That will put a big burden on judges to understand the science, and lead to a lot more expert testimony in the courts," he predicts. The justice department fears that this will greatly increase the cost of trials.
Why has President Bush's ban on lie detector evidence in military courts in 1991 been overturned（）A:Because lie detection is surrounded by uncertainties B:Because it restricts the defendants' rights to prove that they are innocent C:Because 12 states also allow lie detection evidence to be heard in courts D:Because federal judges from the Supreme Court make their decisions on the basis of lie detection evidence
Text 3 After decades of exile from US courts, the science of lie detection is gaining new acceptance. But the federal government wants to put a stop to it, and the US Supreme Court has now agreed to consider a request from the Department of Justice to bar the technology from military courts. Uncertainties surround the science of lie detection, which uses a device called polygraph. In 1991, President George Bush banned lie detector evidence in military courts. But that ban has since been overturned by the US Court of Military Appeals, which ruled that it restricts defendants’ rights to present evidence of their innocence. In the past two years, some federal courts have also ruled ’that polygraph evidence can be heard. This follows a decision by the Supreme Court in 1993 that gave federal judges more discretion to decide on the admissibility of evidence. A polygraph consists of monitors for pulse rate, sweating and breathing rate. The device is supposed to uncover lies by recording increases in these measures as the subject answers questions. Critics have always argued that cunning defendants can control their physiological responses and sway polygraph results. But supporters of the technique argue that recent research has found it to be reliable. A psychologist named Charles Honts at a state university in Idaho, points to laboratory studies, some of them being his own, in which student-subjects were offered cash to sway the test results. This argument is rejected by Leonard Saxe, a psychologist at a Boston university. "There is a huge difference between students in a lab and a defendant," he says. Guilty defendants have time in which to rehearse their lies, and can even come to believe them to be true. Saxe believes that the entire theoretical basis of lie detection is invalid. "It assumes you will be more nervous lying than telling the truth." But he says that for some people lies are trivial, while certain truths can be hard to swallow. David Faigman of the University of California says that if the Supreme Court upholds the military appeal courts decision to allow polygraph evidence, polygraph bans would be overturned in federal courts across US. "That will put a big burden on judges to understand the science, and lead to a lot more expert testimony in the courts," he predicts. The justice department fears that this will greatly increase the cost of trials.
Which of the following statements is true according to the passage（）A:Lie detection evidence has been barred in US military courts since President Bush banned it in 1991 B:Really guilty defendants are more clever than college students C:Leonard Saxe believes that people are more nervous lying than telling the truth D:David Faigman is against the use of lie detection evidence in US courts
A:to watch the most desirable goods B:to make films that can be used as evidence C:to frighten shoplifters by their appearance D:to be used as evidence against shoplifters
In container cargo transportation, the bill of lading serves as a receipt for goods, an evidence of the contract of carriage, and a document of title to the goods. The carrier issues the B/L according to the information in the (1) . The shipped B/L must indicate that the foods have been loaded on board or shipped on a named vessel, and it must be signed by the carrier or the (2) or the agent on behalf of the carder. The originals are marked as "original" on their face and all have equal value, that is, all have the same validity. The original B (s) /L are (3) , one of which must be surrendered to the (4) at destination, duly endorsed in exchange for the goods or the delivery order. When one of the originals being surrendered to the carrier, the others become (5) .
3（）A:evidence of the contract of carriage B:a receipt of goods C:proof of ownership of goods D:the contract of carriage
您可能感兴趣的题目
