This one of those frustrating ones, where even after you read the answer you think "NO WAY".
Background Text:
The latest prominent principle of criminal sentencing is that of "selective incapacitation." Selective incapacitation, like generation incapacitation, involves sentencing... It differs from general incapacitation in its attempt to replace bluntness with selectivity. Under ... selective incapacitation, probation and short terms of incarceration are given to convicted offenders who are identified as being less likely to commit frequent and serious crimes, and longer terms of incarceration are given to those identified as more crime prone.
Related Text:
Is selective incapacitation truly an effective and appropriate proposal, an "idea whose time has come," or is it...a proposal that carries with it a potential for injustice?...
Reserving prison and jail space for the most criminally active offenders may in some instances conflict not only with other norms of legal justice, but with norms of social justice as well. Repeat offenders fall basically into two categories: those who are prone to violence and those are not. If we reserve the sanction of incarceration only for the dangerous repeat offender, excluding the white collar offender and certain other criminals who pose no serious threat of physical injury to others, we may end up permitting harmful people from the middle class to evade a sanction that less privileged offenders cannot. Some white collar offenders, after all, impose great costs on society than many dangerous street offenders, and it is clearly unjust to allow the former to pay a smaller price for their crimes than the latter must pay.
Question 31:
The author's statement that selective incapacitation may "end up permitting harmful people from the middle class to evade a sanction that less privileged offenders cannot" assumes that:
A. there are more offenders in the lower-class than in the middle-class.
B. the dangerous repeat offenders are lower-class and not middle-class.
C. harmful middle-class people can use their money to avoid prison.
D. lower-class offenders do not deserve to suffer incarceration.
The credited answer is B.
My answer is C.
Justification from Kaplan:
If less privileged offenders cannot evade sanction, this mens they must be dangerous repeat offenders, since dangerous repeat offenders are the ones imprisoned under selective incapacitation.
My justification:
QUOTE: we may end up permitting harmful people from the middle class to evade a sanction that less privileged offenders cannot. Some white collar offenders, after all, impose great costs on society than many dangerous street offenders,
This alone seems to invalidate answer B: the dangerous repeat offenders are lower-class and not middle class.
I don't see how B is justified, but C isn't?
Background Text:
The latest prominent principle of criminal sentencing is that of "selective incapacitation." Selective incapacitation, like generation incapacitation, involves sentencing... It differs from general incapacitation in its attempt to replace bluntness with selectivity. Under ... selective incapacitation, probation and short terms of incarceration are given to convicted offenders who are identified as being less likely to commit frequent and serious crimes, and longer terms of incarceration are given to those identified as more crime prone.
Related Text:
Is selective incapacitation truly an effective and appropriate proposal, an "idea whose time has come," or is it...a proposal that carries with it a potential for injustice?...
Reserving prison and jail space for the most criminally active offenders may in some instances conflict not only with other norms of legal justice, but with norms of social justice as well. Repeat offenders fall basically into two categories: those who are prone to violence and those are not. If we reserve the sanction of incarceration only for the dangerous repeat offender, excluding the white collar offender and certain other criminals who pose no serious threat of physical injury to others, we may end up permitting harmful people from the middle class to evade a sanction that less privileged offenders cannot. Some white collar offenders, after all, impose great costs on society than many dangerous street offenders, and it is clearly unjust to allow the former to pay a smaller price for their crimes than the latter must pay.
Question 31:
The author's statement that selective incapacitation may "end up permitting harmful people from the middle class to evade a sanction that less privileged offenders cannot" assumes that:
A. there are more offenders in the lower-class than in the middle-class.
B. the dangerous repeat offenders are lower-class and not middle-class.
C. harmful middle-class people can use their money to avoid prison.
D. lower-class offenders do not deserve to suffer incarceration.
The credited answer is B.
My answer is C.
Justification from Kaplan:
If less privileged offenders cannot evade sanction, this mens they must be dangerous repeat offenders, since dangerous repeat offenders are the ones imprisoned under selective incapacitation.
My justification:
QUOTE: we may end up permitting harmful people from the middle class to evade a sanction that less privileged offenders cannot. Some white collar offenders, after all, impose great costs on society than many dangerous street offenders,
This alone seems to invalidate answer B: the dangerous repeat offenders are lower-class and not middle class.
I don't see how B is justified, but C isn't?
