Perhaps all criminals should be required to carry cards which read: Fragile: Handle with Care. It will never do, these days, to go around referring to criminals as violent thugs. You must refer to them politely as “social misfits”. The professional killer who wouldn’t think twice about using his club or knife to batter some harmless old lady to death in order to rob her of her meager life-savings must never be given a dose of his own medicine. He is in need of “hospital treatment”. According to his misguided defenders, society is to blame. A wicked society breeds evil - or so the argument goes. When you listen to this kind of talk, it makes you wonder why aren’t all criminals. We have done away with the absurdly harsh laws of the nineteenth century and this is only right. But surely enough is enough. The most senseless piece of criminal legislation in Britain and a number of other countries has been the suspension of capital punishment.
The violent criminal has become a kind of hero-figure in our time. He is glorified on the screen; he is pursued by the press and paid vast sums of money for his “memoirs”. Newspapers which specialize in crime reporting enjoy enormous circulations and the publishers of trashy cops and robbers stories or “murder mysteries” have never had it so good. When you read about the achievements of the great train robbery, it makes you wonder whether you are reading about some glorious resistance movement. The hardened criminal is cuddled and cosseted by the sociologists on the one hand and adored as a hero by the masses on the other. It’s no wonder he is a privileged person who expects and receives VIP treatment wherever he goes.
Capital punishment used to be a major deterrent. It made the violent robber think twice before pulling the trigger. It gave the cold-blooded prisoner something to ponder about while he was shaking up or serving his arsenic cocktail. It prevented unarmed policemen from being killed while pursuing their duty by killers armed with automatic weapons. Above all, it protected the most vulnerable members of society, young children, from brutal violence. It is horrifying to think that the criminal can literally get away with murder. We all know that “life sentence” does not mean what it says. After ten years or so of good conduct, the most desperate villain is free to return to society where he will live very comfortably, thank you, on the proceeds of his crime, or he will go on committing offences until he is caught again.
People are always willing to hold liberal views at the expense of others. It’s always fashionable to pose as the defender of the under-dog, so long as you, personally, remain unaffected. Did the defenders of crime, one wonders, in their desire for fair-play, consult the victims before they suspended capital punishment? Hardly, you see they couldn’t, because all the victims were dead.
1.According to the passage, which of the following is the author’s opinion?
2.The tone taken by the author towards these defenders of crime in the passage is （ ）.
3.“Capital punishment” most probably means（ ） .
4.Which of the following is true according to the passage?
5.What conclusion can be drawn from the passage?
