- Wed Jan 18, 2023 2:09 pm
#98952
Hi lsatstudent2,
There is an important difference between Answers A and C.
Answer A describes a situation where a judge believes some, but not all, of the reasons given in his or her judicial decision and states that this qualifies as a violation of the principal of judicial candor. According to the passages, the principal of judicial candor simply means that "judges must believe what they say in their opinions" (line 2). Passage A also refers to it as "the principal of judicial sincerity" (lines 10-11, 29).
Based on this general definition, the author of Passage A would agree that a judge who doesn't believe some of the reasons given in his or her judicial decision would be violating the principle of judicial candor. The author of Passage B would also likely agree that this would constitute a violation of the principle of judicial candor. Note that whether such an action violates the principle is a different issue than whether the principle itself is always correct or whether there are ever good reasons for violating the principle.
Answer C is getting at whether the principal (or judicial duty) to be candid is always justified regardless of the outcomes. Here, the authors disagree. For the author of Passage A, judges have a moral duty to be truthful even if it doesn't produce good outcomes (lines 24-31). The author of Passage B believes that the important benefits of judges being truthful must be weighed in the cost benefit analysis in deciding whether to be candid, but allows the possibility that not being candid may be better in some circumstances (lines 51-61).