Let's understand the argument
The authors conclusion can be found right at the beginning "There is something irriational about our system of laws"
He supports this conclusion with the following premises
(1) the
criminal law punishes a person more severaly for successfully commiting a crime than it does to a person who fails in his attempt
(2) the
civil law however, does not punish a person who fails to defraud his victim. In other words... Only if the person successfully defrauds the victim (and is caught doing so) is punished.
Note the shift of idea.
(I) As per the criminal law, a criminal is punished. But the intensity of the punishment depends on the success/failure of the criminal
(II) As per the Civil law, the person is ONLY punished when he/she successfully defrauds the victim.
Question stem - we have the weaken the conclusion.
• In other words we have the find an answer option that states that "There is NOTHING irrational about our system"
OR
• In other words, the way the Criminal law and civil law treats/punishes the victims is very much rational
Answer choice analysis:-
(A)
Most persons who are imprisoned for crimes will commit another crime if they are ever released from prison.
So? The option talks about the criminals imprisoned once the criminal law punsihes them. But our concern is about the criminal law and civil law w.r.t the rationality in the way in which the criminal is punished. What happens after the criminal is punished isn't our concern.
Moreover, this choice only talks about criminal law. It no where talks about the civil law
(B)
A person is morally culpable for his evil thoughts as well as for his evil deeds. If that's the case then whether the criminal has successfully committed the crime or no. Or whether the person has successfully defrauded a vicitim or no... He should be punished EQUALLY.
This choice strengthens the conclusion by proving that the laws ARE irrational
(C)
There are more criminal laws on the books than there are civil laws on the books.
Out of scope! The number of criminal laws to civil laws has nothing to do with the rationality of the punishment given to the criminal/defrauders by the law.
(D)
A criminal trial is considerably more costly to the state than a civil trial.
Out of scope - again! The cost incurred has no relationship with the rationality of the punishment.
(E)
The goal of the criminal law is to punish the criminal, but the goal of the civil law is to compensate the victimAlas! E is our answer.
Option E shows a distinction between the goal/motive behind the criminal law and the civil law.
Because the goal of the criminal law is
to punish the victim, depending on the intensity of the crime, the punishment is passed.
On the other hand, the goal of the civil law is to
compensate the vicitim for his loss. So if a person has failed to defraud a vicitm, then there is no loss incurred. And if there is no loss incurred, the law cannot punish the person
Posted from my mobile device