Answer: True
Explanation: The Supreme Court admitted that it is haphazard to treat similar things differently and that mandatory death penalty statutes eliminated this problem, but also reckless to treat two different things the same way. In essence, to impose the same penalty on all convicted murderers, even though all defendants
are different, is just as capricious as imposing a penalty randomly.
To relieve this problem, some sentencing guidelines became necessary. This gave rise to the guided discretion statutes that set standards for juries and judges to
use when deciding whether to impose the death penalty. The Court reasoned that, guided discretion statutes struck a reasonable balance between giving the jury some discretion and allowing it to consider the defendant's background and character and the circumstances surrounding the crime.
That kind of fallacy is called Argumentum ad Hominem. It means the argument is addressed to the person; attacking that person instead the issue. There is an irrelevance because the argument is against to the person making a claim, rather against to the claim itself. An example is judging a person's social status or attitude, like calling his strategies aren't effective to finish a certain task because of his untidiness and laziness.
Answer:
i don't know ask your mom
