Difficulty: Hard
Correct Answer: if either I or II is strong
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
Policy on the death penalty involves competing penal philosophies—retribution/deterrence versus reform/rehabilitation—plus proportionality and miscarriages-of-justice risk. In Statement–Argument format, both sides can present strong, principle-based positions.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
Strength rests on relevance and principled grounding. Argument I is strong: it ties the gravity of the harm (many deaths) to maximal punishment as deterrent and moral desert. Argument II is strong: it appeals to prevailing modern penology that emphasises reform/proportionality and questions irreversible sanctions.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Test I: Is deterrence/retribution a recognised aim of punishment? Yes—hence relevant and strong.Test II: Is reform/proportionality a recognised aim limiting severity? Yes—also relevant and strong.Therefore, either I or II is strong.
Verification / Alternative check:
Different jurisdictions balance these aims differently; both are defensible policy lenses, confirming independent strength.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing only one understates the legitimacy of the other penal philosophy; “neither” ignores well-established doctrines.
Common Pitfalls:
Assuming only one penal aim is valid; neglecting proportionality and wrongful-conviction risks.
Final Answer:
if either I or II is strong.
Discussion & Comments