Mr.Binks wrote:So apparently, B is the right answer. I don't see it, though. I feel the argument goes something like this:
P1: Punishment should be lessened if crime was motivated by good intentions
P2: However, even terrible motives can be portrayed as good motives
C: So judges should never mitigate punishment on the basis of motives
Am I missing something? I feel they are all shitty answers...
So the argument is trying to establish that judges should never mitigate punishment.
The first premise is that punishment should be lessened if crime was motivated by good intentions. However, we know that some criminals with "good motives" (i.e., a sincer desire to achieve some larger good) but nonetheless should be punished. Further, its hard to justify giving a lesser punishment when a person who has committed a crime
could potentially portray their motives as "a sincere desire to achieve some larger good"; most often, we won't be able to tell if they're saying that they had a good motive to just receive a lesser punishment than they deserve. For according to the argument, we think people's motives should be considered when arbitrating the punishment.
A principle that helps defend
not giving a mitigated punishment is that it is better to give a consistant (and possibly more of a punishment) than a lesser, more lenient punishment to all criminals who commit crime, whatever that crime may be, because the criminals' motives are/can be merely conjecture and we can't unequivocally prove that the motives they describe were their motives to begin with.
Its long, but the point is that we shouldnt consider criminals' motives because then criminals
could use their motives to get a lesser punishment, and it is for this reason that it is better to give the criminals more of a punishment than less of one. Answer choice B really seems to be at the heart of the argument for the aforementioned reason. HTH.
