- Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:33 pm
#3436
This is a Weaken question, where we want an answer choice that gives a broad rule that would undermine the public advocate's reasoning. First, let's examine the advocate's argument: essentially the advocate feels mandatory sentences should be completely repealed (done away with) because they allow for no judicial discretion/leniency, so juries might find a guilty person innocent simply because they feel the mandatory sentence would be too harsh (won't convict not because of guilt, but because of the unfairness of the punishment).
Answer choice B doesn't address that argument, because it is only talking about strictly defining a judge's role in the legal system. That has nothing to do with mandatory punishments resulting in non-convictions of guilty people by juries, or whether they should be repealed.
Answer choice E, however, is broader and does attack the reasoning of the public advocate. E says that reversing a change in a judicial system (repealing mandatory sentences) that can have negative consequences (innocent verdicts for guilty people) requires that it be impossible to lessen those negative consequences through further/other modification. That is, repealing mandatory sentences should only happen if there is absolutely no way to reduce some of their harms through other means (not total repeal, just modification). But since all that it would potentially take to reduce some incorrect verdicts would be some judicial discretionary power, then there is another way--NOT repeal--to lessen the undesirable consequences. That directly attacks the argument to repeal mandatory sentences, and therefore weakens the public advocate's position (and strengthens the politician's).
I hope that helps!
Jon
Jon Denning
PowerScore Test Preparation
Follow me on Twitter at
https://twitter.com/jonmdenning
My LSAT Articles:
http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/jon-denning
