Appropriate Punishments

Answer choices

1. A

   Unsupported: equating benefit with harm14% picked this

   equating social benefit with harm to

   Does the 2nd rationale think that "harm to criminals" is the same thing as "social benefit"? No, the 2nd rationale is, "punishment is justified by the severity of the crime, independent of any benefit to society". Since the 2nd rationale isn't even considering social benefit, there's no way we could say that it's equating social benefit with "harming criminals".

   14%
2. B

   Correct76% picked this

   regarding punishment as justified by the severity of

   Why this is right

   Does the 2nd rationale regard punishment as justified by the severity of the crime? Yes, in the 2nd paragraph we're told the second rationale is that a punishment is justified by the severity of the crime (independent of any benefit to society) Is this why people think it has a retributive nature? Yes, basically. If the answer said, "justified only by the severity of the crime" it would better convey the idea that the 2nd rationale doesn't care about benefit to society. The fact that the 2nd rationale doesn't care about benefit to society is why people think "it appears to be little more than retribution". This is a stinker of an answer, but we knew the reason some people think the 2nd rationale is retributive in nature is that it only cares about the severity of the crime, not the benefit to society. This answer could do a better job of conveying the notion that people think the second rationale is retributive because it thinks punishment is justified solely by the severity of the crime. But it's still our best available answer.

   Skill tested: Meaning in Context · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   76%
3. C

   First Rationale3% picked this

   support for sentences disproportionate to the crimes

   The 2nd rationale doesn't support sentences that are disproportionate to the crimes they punish. It's all about measuring punishment in accord with the severity of the crime. It cares about whether punishment is just / whether it's appropriate / whether it's proportional to the severity of the wrongdoing. The 1st rationale could be taken to a logical extreme in which a disproportionate sentence is still supported because it provides societal benefit.

   3%
4. D

   First Rationale6% picked this

   belief that any punishment that benefits society

   The 2nd rationale doesn't care about benefit to society at all. "From the retributivist point of view, the question to be asked about punishment is not whether it is beneficial, but whether it is just / appropriate". "The second rationale is that punishment is justified by severity of the crime, independent of any benefit to society". The first rationale is the one that wants to make sure that punishments benefit society.

   6%
5. E

   First Rationale1% picked this

   favoring harsher sentences over more lenient

   Does the 2nd rationale favor harsher sentences over more lenient ones? No, it's all about measuring punishment in accord with the severity of the crime. It cares about whether punishment is just / whether it's appropriate / whether it's proportional to the severity of the wrongdoing. It favors sentences that are appropriately harsh or lenient, given the severity of the crime. Meanwhile, the 1st rationale could be taken to a logical extreme in which a harsher sentence is favored over a more lenient one because the harsher sentence conveys more societal benefit.

   1%