Statement–Argument (Criminal Penalty & Deterrence): Statement: Should death penalty be imposed on manufacturers of spurious (fake/adulterated) drugs? Arguments: I) Yes, profiteering that causes mass deaths amounts to mass murder and merits death penalty. II) No, the primary purpose of punishment is reform of the convict through proportionate penalties. Choose the option indicating which argument is strong.

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:

  • Argument I: Views lethal spurious drugs as akin to mass murder, appealing to proportional retribution and deterrence.
  • Argument II: Prioritises reform and proportionality, warning against capital punishment's finality and its tension with rehabilitative aims.


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.

More Questions from Statement and Argument

Discussion & Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
Join Discussion