Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a lower conviction rate than those who rely on court-appointed public defenders. This explains why criminals who commit lucrative crimes like embezzlement or insider trading are more successful at avoiding conviction than are street criminals.
The explanation offered above would be more persuasive if which one of the following were true?
(A) Many street crimes, such as drug dealing, are extremely lucrative and those committing them can afford expensive private lawyers. States degree of crimes
(B) Most prosecutors are not competent to handle cases involving highly technical financial evidence and have more success in prosecuting cases of robbery or simple assault.May be true but never answer the variation between success rates of private and public prosecutors
(C) The number of criminals convicted of street crimes is far greater than the number of criminals convicted of embezzlement or insider trading. Not stressing on type of conviction rather type of lawyers and success rate.
(D) The percentage of defendants who actually committed the crimes of which they are accused is no greater for publicly defended than for privately defended defendants.If the percentage of public defendants is high than percentage of private defendants, money factor can be violated.
(E) Juries, out of sympathy for the victims of crimes, are much more likely to convict defendants accused of violent crimes than they are to convict defendants accused of “victimless” crimes or crimes against property.Sympathy factor never answers the expanse factor.
If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space