Critical reasoning – Capital punishment policy Statement: Should all those convicted for heinous crimes (e.g., murder or rape) beyond all reasonable doubt be given the death penalty? Arguments: I. No. Death penalty should be reserved for very rare and exceptional cases. II. Yes. It is the only way to punish perpetrators of such inhuman acts. III. Yes. Severe punishments deter such crimes and make society safer. IV. No. Repentant offenders should be given a chance to reform and lead a normal life.

Introduction / Context:
The prompt asks whether capital punishment should be automatic for all heinous crimes proved beyond reasonable doubt. We must assess whether each argument is policy-relevant, principled or evidence-based, and directly tied to the question.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I restricts use of death penalty to the rarest cases, emphasizing proportionality and judicial prudence.
• II asserts that for heinous crimes, death is the only appropriate punishment.
• III focuses on deterrence and public safety.
• IV invokes repentance as a reason to avoid capital punishment.

Concept / Approach:
Arguments are judged on relevance, specificity, and policy weight. Proportionality (I) and deterrence (III) are common pillars in penal policy debates. Argument II, though absolutist, aligns with a retributive justice viewpoint directly addressing the question. Argument IV is weak because individual repentance is subjective and administratively unverifiable at scale.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I – Strong: It argues against automatic death sentences, advocating a narrow, exceptional application to preserve justice and proportionality.II – Strong (within this test’s framework): It supports the proposal by asserting a retributive principle that death is uniquely fitting for certain crimes. Though absolutist, it is directly relevant.III – Strong: It posits deterrence and societal safety as goals served by severe penalties; this is a standard, policy-relevant contention.IV – Weak: Repentance is difficult to verify and cannot be a general basis for sentencing policy.

Verification / Alternative check:
Penal policy often balances retribution, deterrence, and proportionality; I–III reflect those frames, while IV hinges on uncertain personal states.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only II and IV or only III: Ignore proportionality and broader aims.
• All are strong: Incorrect since IV is weak.
• Only II and III: Omits the important proportionality principle in I.

Common Pitfalls:
Allowing subjective repentance to override consistent, equitable sentencing frameworks.

Final Answer:
Only I, II and III are strong