Statement & Argument — Should a rapist be sentenced to life imprisonment in India? Arguments: I. Yes; incidences of rape and crimes against women are high, and current punishments are insufficiently deterrent. II. Yes; the victim’s suffering can persist for a lifetime; punishment should be more stringent than for murder.

Introduction / Context:
The prompt asks whether life imprisonment is warranted for rape. Strong arguments may appeal to deterrence, proportionality to harm, and social protection. Both given arguments support “Yes,” though through different lenses: public safety/deterrence and proportionality to enduring harm.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Severe crimes can justify severe penalties to protect society and deter offenders.
• Rape inflicts long-term physical, psychological, and social harm on survivors.
• The stem queries principle, not specific statutes.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I is strong: it links penalty severity to deterrence and perceived insufficiency of existing sanctions. Argument II is also strong: it appeals to proportionality—lifelong harm may justify a lifelong sentence. While debates exist about deterrence efficacy, both are standard, policy-relevant justifications.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Deterrence and public protection—strong.II: Proportionality to enduring harm—strong.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Either” understates that both lines of reasoning are independently persuasive. “Only I/II” discards a valid counterpart.

Common Pitfalls:
Conflating sentencing policy with evidentiary standards; ignoring victim rehabilitation needs alongside punishment.

Final Answer:
Both Arguments I and II are strong.