Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumPoints of Disagreement

Passage A
The jury system was originally conceived not merely as a fact-finding body, but as the conscience of the community. In early common law, jurors were recognized as having the authority to judge both the facts of a case and the law itself. This prerogative allows a jury to acquit a defendant even when the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, provided they believe the law being applied is fundamentally unjust or its application in the specific case is morally repugnant. To strip the jury of this power is to reduce it to a mere administrative tool of the state, removing a crucial democratic check against legislative tyranny.

Passage B
Modern legal systems are built on the foundational principle of the rule of law, which requires that laws be applied consistently and predictably. To ensure this, the roles within a courtroom are strictly delineated: the judge determines the applicable law, and the jury determines the facts based on the evidence presented. Permitting juries to disregard the law based on their own moral compasses—however well-intentioned—invites chaos. It replaces the uniform application of democratically enacted statutes with the arbitrary and potentially biased whims of twelve individuals. Juries must therefore be bound by the judge's instructions regarding the law.

Based on the passages, is the following statement true or false?

The authors disagree over whether democratically enacted statutes can sometimes be fundamentally unjust.

Answer: Answer

Answer

False. The authors do not disagree on whether statutes can be fundamentally unjust, because Passage B does not take a position on the substantive justice of the laws.
The statement is false because there is no mutual point of disagreement regarding the inherent justice of democratically enacted statutes. Passage A explicitly states that a law can be 'fundamentally unjust.' Passage B argues that juries must apply 'democratically enacted statutes' uniformly, but never claims that such statutes are always just. By acknowledging that a jury's desire to disregard the law might be 'well-intentioned,' Passage B leaves open the possibility that a law could be unjust. Because Passage B does not take a definitive stance opposing Passage A on this specific point, it cannot be considered a point of disagreement.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Passage A's stance on the justice of democratically enacted statutes.
Passage A explicitly states that a law being applied can be 'fundamentally unjust' and views the jury as a 'check against legislative tyranny.'
To determine the first author's position on the proposed point of disagreement.
2
Analyze Passage B's stance on the justice of democratically enacted statutes.
Passage B states that statutes must be uniformly applied to maintain predictability, even if a jury's desire to disregard them is 'well-intentioned.'
To determine the second author's position and see if it contradicts Passage A.
3
Compare both stances against the proposed statement.
While Passage A affirms that laws can be unjust, Passage B does not deny this possibility; it merely argues that juries lack the authority to disregard laws regardless of their justice. Therefore, they do not disagree on this specific point.
A valid point of disagreement requires one author to affirm a proposition and the other to explicitly or implicitly reject it.

Key Concept

Identifying genuine points of disagreement requires finding a proposition that one author clearly affirms and the other clearly rejects, avoiding false disagreements where one author is silent.
Rate this question

Topics

Points of Disagreement

More questions from this topic