Self-study
P1
Many legal theorists have argued that the only morally legitimate goal in imposing criminal penalties against certain behaviors is to prevent people from harming others. ████████ ████ █████████ █████ ██████ ████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ██ ██ ███████ ████ ███████ ████████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██████ █████ ███
Legal theorists' perspective ·
The only morally legitimate goal in criminal penalties is to prevent harm
Under this theory, we shouldn't have laws that force people to act only in order to conform to some social norm.
Main point ·
Harm prevention goal justifies punishing some non-conforming behavior that it initially might not seem to justify
P2
██ ████ ██████████ ██ ██ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ █ █████ ██ █████ ██ ██████ ██ █ ███████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ███ ██████ █████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ █ ████ ████████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ██ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ████ █ ██████████ █████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ██ █████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ████ █████ █████ █████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████ ███ ██████ █████ ███████████ █████ ██ ██ ███████ ██ █ ████████████ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ██████████ ███ █ ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ █ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██ ████ █████████ ███ █████████ ███ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████████████ ████ ████████ ████ ██ █████ █████████ ███ ███ ███ ████ ██ █████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ██ ███ ████ ██ █ ████████████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ████████
Example 1 ·
Lack of coordination can be harmful, so harm-prevention goal can justify coordination
Example: Conventions about which side of the road to drive on. Having a rule that everyone follows is better than no rule, because coordination will prevent harm.
P3
██ ████ █████ ██████████ █████████ █ ████ ███ ███████ ████████ █████████████ ███ ████ ██ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ████████████ ███████ ████ ███ ██ ███████████ ██ ██ ███████ ██ █ ████████████ █████████████████ ██ █ ███████ ████████ ████████████████████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ██ ████████ █████████ █████ █████ ████████ ████████ ███ ████ ███████ ████████ ████ ████████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ████ ███████ ███ ██ █████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ █ ████ ███████████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ███████████ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ███████████ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ █████ ████ ███████████ ██ ████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ██████ ██████ ████ █ ██████████ ████ █████ ███████ ████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ███ ████████ ███ █████ ███ ██████████ ███ ███ ████████████ ████ ████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ██ █████ ██ █████ ██████ ████ ████ █ ████ ██████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ███ █████ ███ ██████ █████████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ████████████ █
Example 2 ·
Harm-prevention goal can also justify coordination in cases where harm goes beyond lack of coordination
Example: Rule against athletes using steroids. If this rule didn't exist, some athletes would use steroids and get an advantage. This forces other athletes to use steroids or lose competitions. So some people's freedom to use steroids ends up harming other athletes. Rule against steroids is in everyone's interest.
Passage Style
Single position
23.
It can be most reasonably ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ █████████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████ ██ ██ █████████ █████████ ███ ███ █████████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ████████████ ██ ████████ ███████████
a
evidence that such █████ ██ ███ █████ ███████████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ███ ████
Anti-supported. The author shows how a rule compelling coordination (banning steroids) can be justified even when the evidence is that such a rule does force individuals to act for their own good.
b
enactment of such █████ ██ █ ████ ███████ ██ █████████ ██████████ █████████ ████████████
Unsupported. The author doesn’t suggest that enactment is necessary to justify anything. Rather, she notes in P2 that certain factors are necessary to justify enactment.
c
the assurance that ████████ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ █ █████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ████ ████ █████
Unsupported. The author doesn’t suggest that criminal penalties are needed to justify anything. Rather, the passage is about how criminal penalties could themselves be justified, under certain conditions and assuming certain principles.
d
some form of ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ████ █████
For the examples in both
e
a sense of █████████ ███ ████████ ██████████ █████ █████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ █████
Too strong. The author notes that rules requiring coordination would need the consent of those who are required to abide by such rules. She doesn’t go so far as to suggest that people need “a sense of community” or “cultural uniformity.” They just need to agree on one specific issue.