Question

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT1On a February afternoon in 1978, Freddie Hall and an accomplice kidnapped Karol Hurst, who was 21 years old and seven months pregnant. They drove her to a nearby woodland, where she was beaten, raped and murdered. After dumping her body, they used her car in a failed robbery of a corner shop, during which they killed Lonnie Coburn, a sheriffs deputy. The facts have never been in dispute. On the jury's recommendation, Mr Hall was sentenced to death in accordance with Florida law.2However, an intense debate has centred on whether this was the appropriate punishment. Mr Hall has an IQ of about 71, well below the national average. He is now the longest-serving inmate on death row, and his case became news again recently when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on executing people who are mentally disabled. The court abolished Florida's rigid policy that depending on the crime committed, anyone with an IQ of more than 70 may legally be executed, regardless of other evidence concerning that person's background or mental condition. Mr Hall's lawyers insist that he is retarded and point to a history of child abuse. To what degree, they ask, should society blame him?3In fact, it has been argued that, for judges and juries, questions about how to punish a convicted criminal are more problematic than trying to decide who actually may have committed a crime. These questions concerning appropriate punishment are hard to answer because the way we view other people's crimes has more to do with evolution than with abstract legal philosophy. In other words, in all their modern complexity, criminal law systems are an evolutionary response to a simple but eternal problem: since it is advantageous to live in co-operative societies, how should we treat people who break the rules either for their own benefit or simply because they are psychopaths?4Methods of judging and punishing vary greatly, but research shows that people’s punitive instincts are surprisingly uniform. Across cultures from past to present, the intentions of the criminal usually matter more than the harm that he or she caused. For example, in most legal systems deliberately murdering someone receives a harsher sentence than accidentally killing someone. It is generally accepted that punishing premeditated harm helps to deter others from doing similar harm.5In medieval England, juries used to throw tied-up defendants into a body of water to see whether or not they could escape. Succeeding was seen a sign of innocence. Nowadays, fortunately, we have more reliable ways of judging, even though deciding on an adequate punishment for a crime can still be a difficult task.Adapted from The Economist July 26*- August 1” 2014.39In paragraph 1, The facts" in the sentence The facts have never been in dispute“ most likely refers to all of the following exceptA Freddie Hall was the co-participant in a terrible sex crime.B Freddie Hall helped to cause the death of a young woman and her unborn child.C The car that Freddie Hall and his companion used in a robbery attempt belonged to the murdered woman.D Freddie Hall and his companion killed an officer of the law in Florida State.E A jury decided that Freddie Hall must be executed as the punishment for his crimes.

Answer 1

Olá! Bom vamos lá!

O título do texto já nos traz uma ideia sobre o que ele vai tratar, e aqui teremos o caso de um homem que sequestrou uma moça de 21 anos grávida e matou essa moça, essa mesma pessoa já tinha feito alguns abusos sexuais e algumas pessoas o consideravam como doente mental, mesmo assim ele foi condenado a morte. Assim o texto continua falando o que seria certo e o que não seria de fazer com essas pessoas, e que para tudo tem uma consequência justa para o que se faz.

Aqui temos uma questão que nos pede a alternativa que não se encaixa no enunciado, nesse caso não quer dizer que está errada mas que não se encaixa como deveria já que estamos falando de que os fatos nunca estiveram em disputa, por isso a resposta é a letra E!

Espero ter ajudado em algo!