Political theorist: Many people believe that the punishment of those who commit even the most heinous crimes shoul...

Victoria on July 27, 2020

Hi @Anna2020,

Happy to help!

The political theorist begins by introducing a common viewpoint - if someone was motivated by the sincere desire to achieve some larger good, then their punishment should be at least somewhat mitigated regardless of how heinous their crime was.

The political theorist concludes that judges should never mitigate punishment on the basis of motive.

Why? Because, while some criminals with admirable motives deserve mitigated punishments, it is easy to present motives in a different light and any conclusions about motives are inherently drawn on the basis of incomplete information.

Answer choice (B) is correct because the political theorist recognizes that some criminals with admirable motives deserve mitigated punishments but concludes that judges should never mitigate punishment on the basis of motives. Therefore, the political theorist recognizes that some criminals may be deserving of a mitigated punishment but suggests that they should not receive one.

The principle outlined in this answer choice supports this reasoning. It is better to err on the side of overly severe punishment (i.e. criminals who deserve a mitigated punishment not receiving one) than to err on the side of overly lenient punishment (i.e. mitigating a criminal's punishment where they had a vicious motive but were able to easily present it as altruistic).

Answer choice (C) is incorrect for two reasons. First, neither the political theorist nor the people whose viewpoint they cite suggest that the actions should not be classified as criminal. Second, the political theorist is focused on the motives behind the actions, not the perceivable consequences of them.

Hope this is helpful! Please let us know if you have any further questions.