/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 23 Defendants who can afford expens... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91影视

91影视

Log out

Learning Materials

Features

Discover

Chapter 5: Problem 23

Defendants who can afford expensive private defense lawyers have a lower conviction rate than those who rely on court-appointed public defenders. This explains why criminals who commit lucrative crimes like embezzlement or insider trading are more successful at avoiding conviction than are street criminals. The explanation offered above would be more persuasive if which one of the following were true? (A) Many street crimes, such as drug dealing, are extremely lucrative and those committing them can afford expensive private lawyers. (B) Most prosecutors are not competent to handle cases involving highly technical financial evidence and have more success in prosecuting cases of robbery or simple assault. (C) The number of criminals convicted of street crimes is far greater than the number of criminals convicted of embezzlement or insider trading. (D) The percentage of defendants who actually committed the crimes of which they are accused is no greater for publicly defended than for privately defended defendants. (E) Juries, out of sympathy for the victims of crimes, are much more likely to convict defendants accused of violent crimes than they are to convict defendants accused of "victimless" crimes or crimes against property.

Short Answer

Expert verified
B: Prosecutors' incompetence in technical cases makes the argument more persuasive.

Step by step solution

01

Understanding the Argument

The argument suggests that defendants who can afford private defense lawyers, often due to committing lucrative crimes, have a lower conviction rate than those who rely on public defenders. This contributes to the perceived success of criminals involved in white-collar crimes over street crimes.
02

Identifying the Core Reason

The core reason provided in the argument is the ability to afford expensive private lawyers. The explanation would be more persuasive if it included other factors that directly relate to the success of private lawyers over public defenders in avoiding convictions.
03

Analyzing the Choices: Choice A

Choice A suggests that many street crimes are lucrative, allowing access to private lawyers. If true, this weakens the argument as it implies that the ability to hire good lawyers doesn't fully explain conviction rates, since some lucrative street criminals still get convicted.
04

Analyzing the Choices: Choice B

Choice B proposes that prosecutors struggle with technical financial evidence. If prosecutors are less competent in such cases, this complements the argument that wealthy defendants face lower conviction rates because their cases are harder to prosecute, making the argument more persuasive.
05

Analyzing the Choices: Choice C

Choice C states that more street crime convictions occur than for white-collar crime, but this focuses on raw numbers, not the effectiveness of the defense, and sidesteps the reason for lower conviction rates for wealthy defendants.
06

Analyzing the Choices: Choice D

Choice D claims that the actual guilt rate is the same for publicly and privately defended defendants. This is relevant, as it supports the argument if guilt is equal but conviction rates differ, highlighting lawyer effectiveness.
07

Analyzing the Choices: Choice E

Choice E addresses jury sympathy, which is a separate issue from legal defense. While potentially true, it doesn't strengthen the argument linking wealth and lawyer effectiveness.
08

Choosing the Best Explanation

Choice B best supports the argument because it highlights prosecutorial weaknesses in handling the sophisticated defenses employed in lucrative crime cases, thus aligning with the explanation that wealthier defendants achieve better outcomes due to the complexity of their cases.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91影视!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Defense Lawyers
Defense lawyers play a crucial role in the legal system by representing individuals accused of crimes. They work to ensure that their client's legal rights are protected and strive to achieve the best possible outcome. A defendant with a competent and experienced lawyer can navigate the complexities of the legal process more effectively.
Private defense lawyers often have more resources and time to dedicate to their cases compared to public defenders. They might be able to hire expert witnesses, conduct thorough investigations, and develop sophisticated legal strategies.
  • Represent clients in court
  • Provide legal counsel and guidance
  • Prepare legal strategies and defenses
The financial ability to hire a private lawyer can significantly impact the trial's outcome, as seen in white-collar cases where defendants usually afford expensive legal representation, contributing to lower conviction rates.
Public Defenders
Public defenders are attorneys provided by the state to represent defendants who cannot afford to hire a private lawyer. Although they are often skilled and dedicated professionals, public defenders typically handle high caseloads, which can limit the time and resources available for each client.
This situation can impact their ability to mount comprehensive defense strategies as extensive as their private counterparts. Despite these challenges, public defenders are crucial in the justice system, ensuring that even those lacking financial resources have legal representation. They help maintain the right to a fair trial regardless of an individual's economic status.
  • Represent clients unable to afford private attorneys
  • Manage high volume caseloads
  • Strive to protect clients' rights and achieve just outcomes
Conviction Rates
Conviction rates refer to the percentage of criminal cases that result in a guilty verdict. Several factors influence these rates, including the skill and resources of the defense lawyer. Defendants with skilled private attorneys often have lower conviction rates compared to those with public defenders.
This difference is partly because private defense lawyers can devote more time and resources to each case, potentially identifying weaknesses in the prosecution's evidence or strategy. However, conviction rates can also be influenced by other factors like the nature of the crime, jury perceptions, and, occasionally, prosecutorial competencies.
  • Influenced by the type of legal defense
  • Affected by nature and complexity of crime
  • Jury biases can also play a role
Prosecutorial Competence
Prosecutorial competence is crucial in ensuring that justice is served. It involves the prosecutor's ability to build strong cases, present evidence effectively, and navigate legal challenges during a trial. The competence level can considerably affect the trial's outcome, especially in complex cases like those involving financial crimes.
Sometimes, cases involving technical financial evidence, like embezzlement or insider trading, can be challenging for prosecutors. Their ability to understand and convey complex information is critical in achieving convictions. A lack of competence in these areas can lead to lower conviction rates, irrespective of the defense strategy employed.
  • Involves building and presenting strong cases
  • Crucial for handling complex and technical trials
  • Directly impacts conviction rates and legal outcomes

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Certain items-those with that hard-to-define quality called exclusivity-have the odd property, when they become available for sale, of selling rapidly even though they are extremely expensive. In fact, trying to sell such an item fast by asking too low a price is a serious error, since it calls into question the very thing-exclusivity - that is supposed to be the item's chief appeal. Therefore, given that a price that will prove to be right is virtually impossible for the seller to gauge in advance, the seller should make sure that any error in the initial asking price is in the direction of setting the price too high. The argument recommends a certain pricing strategy on the grounds that (A) this strategy lacks a counterproductive feature of the rejected alternative (B) this strategy has all of the advantages of the rejected alternative, but fewer of its disadvantages (C) experience has proven this strategy to be superior, even though the reasons for this superiority elude analysis (D) this strategy does not rely on prospective buyers \(^*\) estimates of value (E) the error associated with this strategy, unlike the error associated with the rejected alternative, is likely to go unnoticed

Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of serendipity, the chance discovery of valuable findings that investigators had not purposely sought. Now, however, scientific research tends to be so costly that investigators are heavily dependent on large grants to fund their research. Because such grants require investigators to provide the grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of the proposed research, investigators ignore anything that does not directly bear on the funded research. Therefore, under the prevailing circumstances, serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends? (A) Only findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator's research. (B) In the past few scientific investigators attempted to make clear predictions of the outcome of their research. (C) Dependence on large grants is preventing investigators from conducting the type of scientific research that those investigators would personally prefer. (D) All scientific investigators who provide grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of their research receive at least some of the grants for which they apply. (E) In general the most valuable scientific discoveries are the product of serendipity.

Marine biologists had hypothesized that lobsters kept together in lobster traps eat one another in response to hunger. Periodic checking of lobster traps, however, has revealed instances of lobsters sharing traps together for weeks. Eight lobsters even shared one trap together for two months without eating one another. The marine biologists' hypothesis, therefore, is clearly wrong. The argument against the marine biologists' hypothesis is based on which one of the following assumptions? (A) Lobsters not caught in lobster traps have been observed eating one another. (B) Two months is the longest known period during which eight or more lobsters have been trapped together. (C) It is unusual to find as many as eight lobsters caught together in one single trap. (D) Members of other marine species sometimes eat their own kind when no other food sources are available. (E) Any food that the eight lobsters in the trap might have obtained was not enough to ward off hunger.

Which one of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on Rubinstein's argument concerning wealth and the official governing elite in nineteenth- century Britain? (A) Entry into this elite was more dependent on university attendance than on religious background. (B) Attendance at a prestigious university was probably more crucial than a certain minimum family income in gaining entry into this elite. (C) Bishops as a group were somewhat wealthier, at the point of entry into this elite, than were higher civil servants or chairmen of manufacturing companies. (D) The families of many members of this elite owned few, if any, shares in iron industries and textile industries in the north of England. (F) The composition of this elite included vice-chancellors, many of whom held office because of their wealth.

There is a widespread belief that people can predict impending earthquakes from unusual animal behavior. Skeptics claim that this belief is based on selective coincidence: people whose dogs behaved oddly just before an earthquake will be especially likely to remember that fact. At any given time, the skeptics say, some of the world's dogs will be behaving oddly. Clarification of which one of the following issues would be most important to an evaluation of the skeptics' position? (A) Which is larger, the number of skeptics or the number of people who believe that animal behavior can foreshadow earthquakes? (B) Are there means other than the observation of animal behavior that nonscientists can use to predict earthquakes? (C) Are there animals about whose behavior people know too little to be able to distinguish unusual from everyday behavior? (D) Are the sorts of behavior supposedly predictive of earthquakes as pronounced in dogs as they are in other animals? (E) Is the animal behavior supposedly predictive of earthquakes specific to impending earthquakes or can it be any kind of unusual behavior?
See all solutions

Recommended explanations on English Textbooks

Prosody

Read Explanation

English Grammar

Read Explanation

Morphology

Read Explanation

5 Paragraph Essay

Read Explanation

Essay Writing Skills

Read Explanation

Language Acquisition

Read Explanation
View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.