The Flaw in Blanket Arguments: A Lawyer’s Case of Circular Reasoning
14/10/2024 Category: poor-reasoning
When it comes to justice, should rehabilitation always trump life imprisonment? Certainly not with the help of a non sequitur—a conclusion that doesn’t logically follow from its premise
The point of making an argument is to advance a conclusion, whether it's an opinion or a policy recommendation. However, arguments often reflect personal or professional interests.
An example is a lawyer's statement that "life sentences without parole are unconscionable in any legal system because one purpose of sentencing is rehabilitation." This is a flawed argument because it assumes rehabilitation is the only acceptable outcome in every instance. However, that’s not a given. It’s a preference, not a fact. Rehabilitation and life imprisonment are distinct choices, and society must decide which should apply, depending on context.
Moreover, rehabilitation isn't automatically superior to life imprisonment. There are significant considerations, including public safety, the backgrounds of offenders, and the risk of re-offending. Releasing dangerous individuals may lead to more harm than keeping them imprisoned for life. Therefore, while rehabilitation is important, it cannot justify a blanket rejection of life sentences without parole.
In the end, decisions about justice should weigh all factors, not rely on sweeping generalizations. What’s truly unconscionable? That’s for society to decide—case by case.
It’s crucial for society to remain vigilant against flawed reasoning, like the non sequitur used in the lawyer's argument. Arguments that jump to conclusions without sound logic can lead to misguided decisions. By recognizing and challenging these logical fallacies, we can promote critical thinking and ensure that important societal issues, such as sentencing and justice, are addressed with reason and fairness.
- - ArgueGuru - -