PrepTest 124, Section 3, Question 14
Criminologist: A judicial system that tries and punishes(43 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(9 more words not shown)
- AIt is in(10 more words not shown)
- BAbout one-fourth of(10 more words not shown)
- CMany violent crimes(5 more words not shown)
- DEveryone accused of(8 more words not shown)
- ECountries that promptly(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I can see the proposed deterrent: if people expect punishment to come quickly, perhaps they'll think twice before committing a violent crime.
But will they actually respond that way? The criminologist says long proceedings may create a feeling of invulnerability. That possibility doesn't establish how much the speed of punishment affects people's choices. We need a connection between knowing the punishment will be prompt and deciding not to act.
What we’re looking for
I also wonder whether rushing cases could lead to unfair treatment. That's a different concern, though. A system could be unfair and still deter crime, or fair and ineffective at deterrence. Since we're weakening the claim about deterrence, the useful answer must give us a reason to doubt that prompt punishment changes the behavior at issue. A criticism of the justice system in general won't necessarily do that.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This gives us a reason the proposed calculation may never take place. If violent crime isn't planned in advance, it may happen in the heat of the moment. Think of violence erupting during an argument: the person may act without stopping to weigh whether punishment would arrive promptly or after a long trial.
That undercuts the link the criminologist needs between expected punishment and hesitation. It doesn't prove that consequences can never influence an unplanned act. A weakener need not go that far. It makes the proposed deterrent less convincing by questioning whether people are considering the relevant consequence when they act.
- B
Innocent people being arrested is a serious issue, but it doesn't tell us whether prompt punishment deters potential violent offenders. It also doesn't show that faster trials produce more mistaken arrests or convictions. Don't supply that additional connection just because the statistic raises a different concern.
- C
A first-time offender could know the likely punishment without having personally experienced it. Deterrence is supposed to stop people before they offend, including the first time. This answer doesn't explain why the speed of punishment would fail to affect them.
- D
The criminologist hasn't proposed eliminating trials. The recommendation concerns trying and punishing people without delay. A right to a trial doesn't by itself establish that a prompt trial is impossible or that prompt punishment lacks a deterrent effect.
- E
This comparison points toward the author's conclusion: prompt punishment is associated with lower crime rates. It doesn't prove that speed caused the difference, and it concerns crime generally, but it gives us no reason to reject the proposed deterrent. It runs in the wrong direction for a weakener.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.