E is the right answer.Quote:
Politician: The mandatory jail sentences that became law two years ago for certain crimes have enhanced the integrity of our system of justice, for no longer are there two kinds of justice, the kind dispensed by lenient judges and the kind dispensed by severe ones.
Public advocate: But with judges stripped of discretionary powers, there can be no leniency even where it would be appropriate. So juries now sometimes acquit a given defendant solely because the jurors feel that the mandatory sentence would be too harsh. Those juries, then, do not return an accurate verdict on the defendant’s guilt. This is why it is imperative that the legislation instituting mandatory jail sentences be repealed.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, provides the politician with the strongest basis for countering the public advocate’s argument?
Based on the question stem, my reasoning is focused on the argument of the Public Advocate.
Conclusion: This is why it is imperative that the legislation instituting mandatory jail sentences be repealed.
Premise: But with judges stripped of discretionary powers, there can be no leniency even where it would be appropriate.
Premise: So juries now sometimes acquit a given defendant solely because the jurors feel that the mandatory sentence would be too harsh. Those juries, then, do not return an accurate verdict on the defendant’s guilt.
The Public Advocate argues that it is imperative that the legislation instituting mandatory jail sentences be repealed. Why? Because this legislation stripped judges of discretionary power and as a result, there can be no leniency even where it would be appropriate. In addition, this new legislation enables juries to acquit a given defendant solely because the jurors feel the mandatory sentence would be too harsh. The result is that those juries do not return an accurate verdict on the defendant's guilt.
Our task is to weaken the argument of the Public Advocate. So fine, there are some issues with the new legislation as stated by the Public Advocate. Let's agree with him that these concerns are genuine, and hence something has to be done about it. The Advocate proposed that the new legislation be repealed. What could be an assumption on which this conclusion can be drawn based on the argument made by the Public Advocate? It has to be assumed that there is nothing else that can be done to amend the legislation, so the proposal should be repealed. But what about if the concerns raised by the Advocate can be taken into consideration and requisite provisions made in the new legislation through an amendment? Then the conclusion made above by the Public Advocate will not hold water.
Option E states that changes in a system of justice that produce undesirable consequences should be reversed only if it is not feasible to ameliorate those undesirable consequences through further modification. This means that the conclusion made by the Advocate should only be a last resort only if it is not possible to modify the legislation to take care of the undesirable consequences outlined by the Advocate above. This is the best answer out of the lot in line with the reasoning above.
Quote:
(A) Juries should always consider whether the sum of the evidence leaves any reasonable doubt concerning the defendant’s guilt, and in all cases in which it does, they should acquit the defendant.
This does not weaken the proposal made by the Advocate for the repeal of the new legislation. A is incorrect.
Quote:
(B) A system of justice should clearly define what the specific actions are that judges are to perform within the system.
I find this answer choice tempting, and in fact when I went through the process of elimination, I was left with options B and E. But clearly, this option does not attack the conclusion of the Advocate in a manner that option E does. So a system of justice should clearly define what specific actions are that judges are to perform within the system, how do we ensure this? Do we repeal the legislation or amend it? Clearly B does not tell us whether we should repeal the new legislation. Hence, compared to E which is direct by stating that the reversal/repeal should only be considered when it is not feasible to address the undesirable consequences through further modifications. In other words, consider an amendment to the legislation rather a repeal of the legislation. B is thus incorrect.
Quote:
(C) A system of justice should not require any legal expertise on the part of the people selected to serve on juries.
C is incorrect because it is out of scope and hence irrelevant.
Quote:
(D) Changes in a system of justice in response to some undesirable feature of the system should be made as soon as possible once that feature has been recognized as undesirable.
Whether the changes to the system in response to some undesirable features of the system should be made as soon as possible once that feature has been recognized as undesirable is immaterial to whether the change should be made by repealing the new legislation or by amending the new legislation. D is thus incorrect.
Quote:
(E) Changes in a system of justice that produce undesirable consequences should be reversed only if it is not feasible to ameliorate those undesirable consequences through further modification.
Correct per the reasoning above.