RC Question 13 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Which one of the following would be an example…
DISCUSSION: The final paragraph addresses the possibility that judges could use legal reasoning to hide their actual reasons.
Example: A judge wants to find a defendant guilty because the judge doesn’t like their clothes. However, the judge uses evidence and legal arguments to argue the defendant is guilty.
The author argues this isn’t a problem. It’s fine for judges to use silly, biased reasons to convict, if they can also provide compelling legal reasoning to support their decisions.
___________
- No, the final paragraph is referring to reasons for judgements, not reasons for recusal.
- The author never mentions people without legal training. On lines 46-48 they mention people with legal knowledge, but that doesn’t mean the judgements couldn’t also be understood by regular people.
- CORRECT. Suppose a judge convicted because they hated someone’s attitude, but wrote a compelling legal argument for conviction. The real reason for conviction would be the judge’s hatred.
However the author argues this is acceptable if the legal reasoning is sound. - No, this refers to the written reasons. We won’t know the real reasons for a judgment.
- Rubbish. The passage doesn’t even mention central legal principles.
Leave a Reply