Select the meaningful sequence in the administration of justice: (i) Police, (ii) Punishment, (iii) Crime, (iv) Judge, (v) Judgement. Arrange from the initiating event to the final outcome.

Introduction / Context:
This sequence problem models the typical criminal justice pipeline. After an offense occurs, law enforcement, the judiciary, and sentencing come into play in a well-recognized order. Knowing this order is essential for reasoning questions that abstract real institutional processes.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Events and roles: Crime (iii), Police (i), Judge (iv), Judgement (v), Punishment (ii).
• Use a standard, simplified criminal justice flow.

Concept / Approach:
First a crime occurs. The police investigate and present the case. A judge conducts the trial process. The judgement is delivered. Based on the judgement, punishment (sentencing) is imposed as applicable. Hence the order must mirror cause → investigation → adjudication → decision → consequence.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Crime happens: (iii).2) Police respond/investigate: (i).3) Trial before the judge: (iv).4) Judgement is passed: (v).5) Punishment is awarded if guilty: (ii).Therefore, (iii), (i), (iv), (v), (ii).

Verification / Alternative check:
Swap checks: punishment cannot occur before judgement; judgement cannot precede a judicial hearing; police cannot act before a crime exists. All constraints are satisfied by the chosen order.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Sequences that place punishment before judgement ignore due process.
• Orders that put judge or judgement before police investigation are unrealistic.
• Starting with police or judge without a prior crime breaks causality.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming “judgement” and “punishment” are interchangeable; they are sequential, not simultaneous.

Final Answer:
(iii), (i), (iv), (v), (ii)