Тестовый вопрос

One of the main goals of legal systems is to disincentivize people from committing crimes. Even though lawmakers are far from being perfectly rational, the legal systems that have stood the test of time can be understood through the lens of economic analysis. However, it's not always easy to perform these analyses. The alternatives below explain how past legal systems worked and deduce their consequences; which deduction isn't coherent?

(a) In Medieval Iceland, there was no executive branch of government; instead, law enforcement was provided by private citizens. Punishments usually consisted of fines. This system only worked because the right to enforce a settlement could be traded freely.

(b) In the Qing legal system, the courts could order witnesses to be tortured in order to check the veracity of their statements. This system incentivized private settlement of disputes, as going to court was potentially dangerous for both parties.

(c) In eighteenth-century England, private citizens were responsible for the prosecution of crime, not the government. This had no effect on the ability of the government to ignore crimes when convenient.

(d) The Athenian legal system had a clever system to charge property taxes in a world before accounting: in order to avoid paying these taxes, all you had to do is find another citizen that hadn't paid his due. This citizen could then either pay up or trade all his assets with yours, in which case you'd pay the taxes. Under this system, it's only rational to pay taxes if there are no wealthier citizens that haven't yet paid their due.