PT 21 S3 Q15
Politician: The mandatory jail sentences that became ... ...
Which one of the following principles, if valid, provides the politician with the strongest basis for countering the public advocates' argument?
(A) Juries should always consider whether the sum of the evidence leaves any reasonable doubt concerning the defendant's guilt, and in all cases in which it does, they should acquit the defendant.
(B) ...
(C) ...
(D) ...
(E) ...
*This question is included in
Practice Set: "Weaker" Questions, Set 3 - Difficult/Uncommon Mix (25Q)
Replies to This Thread: 1
|
----
PT 21 S3 Q15: Politician: The mandatory jail sentences that became ... ...
Posted: 09/06/2013 23:56
Yeah...no idea here. Could someone shed a little light on this situation?
Contributor
Reply 1 of 1
Replies to This Thread: 0
|
----
Posted: 10/31/2013 16:55
Hi, Matt -
The public advocate is saying that the mandatory sentencing law should be repealed because it is causing juries to acquit possibly guilty defendants just because they consider the mandatory punishment too harsh.
If the politician wishes to counter this argument, he can do so in one of two ways: (1) He can argue that the premise is false (i.e., that juries are not acquitting potentially guilty defendants because of the law), or (2) He can argue against the conclusion (i.e., say that the law should not necessarily be repealed even if such acquittals are occurring). None of the answers supports (1), but answer [E] could act as the basis of (2). Therefore [E] is correct.
Please post again if you have any other questions.
Best,
Lyn
