Q12

[Didius Falco]

Can one of the experts weigh in on confirming my analysis for why I missed this one?
---------

I interpreted (C) as saying something to the effect of 'the retributionist rationale (RR) justifies punishments in a larger variety of cases then the social-benefit rationale (SR)'.

I concluded from lines 17-21 that the question was hinting at the fact that the RR justifies punishments even in cases where this is not a social benefit, unlike the the SR. Hence, it justifies more "kinds" of punishments.

I now see that (B) correctly is referencing the discussion of the potential unfairness of the SR in relation to disproportionate punishments, a fault that the RR lacks/remedies. Hence, I see the support for this as the credited answer.

--------
My question is, in what way did I misinterpret (C)? I see two possibilities:

1. "Kinds" is meant to be read as 'forms or varieties of punishment' (e.g; whipping, drowning, forced attendance at Bieber concerts...). Obviously, in this reading, there is no supported difference between each given theory in the forms of punishment it justifies (unsupported/unaddressed).

2. "Kinds" is indeed meant to be read the way I presented it initially, as 'number of applicable cases for punishment'; but this is actually an unsupported comparison---because (perhaps) it is unclear which theory casts a wider net on punishable events. Perhaps there are more cases which could be justified for punishment with a social benefit claim than a retributionist claim, and vice versa.
---------

Any experts have thoughts on this? I am inclined to think that interpretation 1 is correct, and I just misread the intention of "kinds". But I would love a second opinion.

[ohthatpatrick]

Great question.

I think kinds/types of punishments is completely out of scope, except for mentioning "probation" vs. "prison sentences".

Do different lengths of sentencing qualify as different kinds of punishment? I would think that qualifies more as different severity of punishment.

So I think it's fair to say we don't speak enough to differing types of punishment to weigh in on (C).

I think you want (C) to be saying "It justifies punishing more kinds of infractions".

I think lines 24-26 basically go against (C). It sounds there like SR, the first rationale, allows for us to have more flexibility in terms of how we punish.

Since RR is the rationale that balances benefit and punishment, it is trickier and more limiting to find the "sweet spot".

Hope this helps.

[RayH73]

Can someone explain why answer choice E is wrong here? I couldn't find any specific evidence showing that E is wrong

[smiller]

Choice (E) is contradicted by the last paragraph, specifically lines 48–53. These lines state that the second rationale described in the passage, meaning retribution, is grounded in the first rationale based on social benefit. So retributive punishment doesn't "inherently" allow more lenient punishment than the social benefit rationale because, according to the author, the sense of appropriateness that can be associated with retributive punishment is actually based on the concept of benefit.