Introduction / Context:
This problem presents two principled viewpoints about electoral eligibility after criminal conviction. In “Arguments” questions, more than one argument can be strong if each stands on its own logical footing.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Argument I prioritizes probity in public office—convicted persons may erode trust and governance quality.
- Argument II emphasizes democratic choice—voters should decide, with disqualification rules kept minimal.
- No detail on type of offence, time elapsed, or rehabilitation is provided.
Concept / Approach:
Public ethics and democratic freedom can both be legitimate policy bases. A strong argument need not be universally decisive; it must be relevant, weighty, and logically connected to the policy choice.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Strong. Electoral offices demand high integrity; conviction indicates breach of law and could undermine public trust. Many systems restrict candidature after serious convictions.Argument II: Strong. Democracy respects people’s agency; blanket exclusions risk disenfranchising choice. Voters can weigh conviction context and rehabilitation when choosing representatives.
Verification / Alternative check:
Comparative practice varies—some democracies impose time-bound disqualifications; others prioritize voter choice. Both logics inform real policy debates.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I or only II misses the legitimacy of the other principle; “Either” implies only one can be strong; “Neither” denies both reasonable standpoints.
Common Pitfalls:
Forcing a binary when both arguments hold weight; ignoring rehabilitation vs. deterrence debates.
Final Answer:
Both I and II are strong
Discussion & Comments