#24 - Legal theorist: Only two types of theories of criminal

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[Khodi7531]

I'm confused about this question, on test day and blind review I couldn't get it right. I circled D.


I was and still am confused on how you can make an inference that repeat offenses longer sentences are acceptable for rehabilitationist theory. We barley talk about rehab theory besides the first sentence - and judging by that I was looking for inferences to make for rehab theory more-so than retributivist, but found nothing.



All it says is you reform the offender...how can an inference be made that they would receive longer sentences by a repeat offense if you're doing rehab theory? Doesn't make much sense to me.

[ahhe223]

1. Acceptable theories criminal sentencing ----> Retri + Rehab
2. Retri: to punish. Rehab: to reform.
3. Retri Acceptable ---> conform to principle (harshness=severity)
4. Retri + longer sentence for repeat ----> ~conform to principle (harshness=severity) ---> ~Retri Acceptable

This is a MBT question and thus has no conclusion.
(E) is correct because we know "longer sentence for repeat" is unacceptable for Retri theory. If it's not acceptable for Retri, then the only other acceptable theory (from 1.) is Rehab. Thus, if "longer sentence for repeat" is acceptable, then it must be Rehab.

[Khodi7531]

Damn, that makes sense.


I appreciate that response. Followed it the whole time, and surprised I didn't see that. But I think it's because of the way E was phrased that didn't get me to consider it - ".....is acceptable only if it is rehab theory."


I didn't read E as an if this is the case...then it has to be rehab. It sounded more direct and strong to say...but I think that's cause I just didn't have this idea in my head and read it in a different tone.


Not really sure how I can try to translate this into the next test besides reading the answer choice with a little more focus..

[cascott15]

Hello everyone -

What I'm struggling to grasp about this question is that we still don't know anything about rehabilitationist theory other than the fact that it is one of two acceptable theories.

Especially given that this is a MBT rather than a MSS, how can we attribute a theory to a school of thinking that we don't know anything about? What if rehab theory also rejects increasing sentences for repeat offenders as well?

I get where answer E is going, but the certainty of it still doesn't quite sit right with me. I would've been more open to it if it said "punishment for repeat offenders can be acceptable only if it is rehab."

Any feedback? Thanks.

[James Finch]

Hi Cascott,

The first sentence creates a clear either/or-but-not-both dichotomy: acceptable theories are either rehabilitationist or retributivist, but not both. Increasing sentences for repeat offenses make a retributivist theory unacceptable (but not necessarily a rehabilitationist theory). So to diagram this:

Acceptable Theory of Criminal Sentencing Retributivist or Rehabilitationist

RetributivistAcceptable Proportional Longer Sentences for Repeat Offenses

and the contrapositive

Longer Sentences for Repeat Offenses Proportional RetributivistAcceptable

So if we have an acceptable theory that advocates longer sentences for repeat offenses, we can see that it can't be retributivist, which means it can only be rehabilitationist.

Hope this clears things up!

[cornflakes]

I kind of arrived at E here by sheer luck because A-D were all so bad, and I couldn't completely eliminate E, although it didn't feel very comfortable to me. I could clearly pick out that the longer sentences for repeat offenses couldn't go with Retributivist theory, but like others, was caught up in the uncertainty about knowing if it could go with Rehab theories.

Reading it again, the key here I think was to notice that it doesn't have to be certain - all its saying is if the theory (that contains longer sentences for repeat offenses) is acceptable, then we know it must be rehab theory.

So if acceptable - well, we know the only two possibilities of theories that could even be acceptable are retributivist and rehab, and we know that retributivist can't have it, so if it essentially turned on, then it must be a rehab theory (as this is the only other type of theory that is "acceptable")

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Exactly Cornflakes. We don't know if the theory is acceptable or not. Answer choice (E) gives us that conditional language of "if" it's acceptable. We know it can't be retributive from the stimulus, so that means the only option would be for it to be rehabilitative. Hope that helps!

[Katherinthesky]

Hello!

(B) and (E) sound similar to me.
Is (B) also incorrect because the phrase "sometimes requires" too extreme?

Thanks in advance!

[Robert Carroll]

Katherinthesky,

There are some rehabilitationist theories that think repeater offenders should get longer sentences; does reforming ever require anything like that? Nothing in the stimulus indicates the author is saying those types of theories require something; there is instead a description of what some theories think. This is why answer choice (B) is incorrect.

Robert Carroll