Capital punishment is a barbaric and outdated practice that fails to acknowledge that errors are possible in the judicial system. If it were possible to ascertain guilt without a shadow of a doubt, certain situations would surely warrant the death penalty; as it is, however, capital punishment is never justified.
Which of the following most logically supports the conclusion?The argument says the death penalty could be justified only if guilt were absolutely certain. But since the judicial system can make mistakes, capital punishment is never justified. So the best support is the idea that
as long as there is any real chance of executing an innocent person, the death penalty is wrong.
(A) Our legal system offers alternative punishments.
This is too weak. The conclusion is not that capital punishment is unnecessary, but that it is never justified because errors are possible.
(B) It is immoral to punish any crime by death.
This is much too broad. The argument explicitly says some situations would warrant the death penalty if guilt could be known with complete certainty.
(C) One must consider the cultural and political implications of the death penalty.
This is irrelevant. The argument is about judicial error, not broader cultural or political effects.
(D) Capital punishment is wrong as long as the possibility exists of convicting an innocent person.
This directly supports the conclusion. It matches the argument exactly: because error is possible, the death penalty is unjustified.
(E) Our culture does not have a uniform morality.
This is irrelevant. The argument does not depend on disagreement in society.
Answer: (D)