4 Steps In Evaluating An Argument – Arguments And Evaluation

Radar Detectors

Radar detectors should be banned as they help motorists to break the law under the pretenses of protecting themselves from getting a ticket from highway patrols. Radar detectors are designed to notify over speeding motorists of police presence by beeping after which the motorist would then slow down to the required speeds.

Motorists are notified prior to being caught on the police radar. With the aid of a radar detector, an over speeding motorist would be able to get away with it because they would only slow down and drive below the prescribed speed limit only when they their device detected that the police were in the vicinity. When a motorist knows that they can be notified when they approach the police on highway patrol, they are more likely to speed and thus expand the risk of an accident. The statements surrounding this argument imply that motorists using a radar detector have the intention to over speed but that is an error in truth. Not all motorists who use the radar detector have the intention to over speed and avoid being caught. Some motorists realizing that the radar guns being used by the police have an error of margin that can read speeds erroneously, arm themselves with a radar detector to know when the police patrols are in the vicinity to avoid falling into a speed trap. According to the Radar Detector Organization (2016), more than 25% of all citations made from Police radar are written in error. These inaccuracies can be caused by poorly calibrated police radar or an improper angle of the police radar, normally an angle of more than 11 degrees would produce erroneous speed-readings.  These errors of margin vary and include other factors such as the direction and distance from which the police radar is shooting.

The desire to avoid a costly speeding ticket using radar detectors is not necessarily indicative of the intention to over speed. Radar detectors as tools can be used by motorists either correctly or incorrectly. Radar detectives are not directly linked to over speeding because as a device it is not designed to force people to drive over the speed limit. Despite the statistics that support higher rates of accidents among motorists who own radar detectors, this is not a direct correlation to say that motorists who own radar detectors are thus dangerous drivers. There is evidence that indicates higher accident rate per mile among motorists who do not own a radar detector compared to motorists who actually own a radar detective(Radar Detector Organization, 2016).

The premise that radar detectors save people from getting speeding tickets is false. The invalidity of the premise arises from the fact that there are many ways for a police on patrol to catch a speeder without necessarily relying on a speed gun to get the information that he needs. Other detectors are used by the police some of which are mounted on their vehicles and can be switched on within a short time frame, making it harder for the radar detectors to make detection in good time to brake and effectively slow down. Most radar detectors in the market are also not fast enough and can potentially miss the signal when it comes to detecting the presence of the police patrol. The deduction here is that to save oneself from getting a speeding ticket, one must adhere to speed limits set by law enforcement despite their subjective feelings of how low or how inappropriate the speed limits seem to be.

Radar detectors should be banned as they aid speeding motorists to break the law. The fact that a radar detector can alert a motorist of police presence is not a guarantee that the motorist will evade a speeding ticket if they were in fact speeding.

Government Seizure of Property of Convicted Drug Dealers

Government seizure of property of convicted drug dealers is not a viable way to combat the drug problem because it violates the rights of innocent parties such as spouses and children.

Asset forfeiture takes away the instrumentalities of crime out of circulation and thus abates nuisances. For instance, a building can be shut down under the laws that asset forfeiture if a drug dealer uses the building as a ‘crack house’ from where children on their to school come into contact with people selling them drugs. Asset forfeiture has proven over the years to be an important and powerful tool that is used by federal law enforcement against criminals such as drug dealers who prey on the vulnerable for financial gain(Cassella, 1997).According to the police and prosecutors, the drug dealers are hit where it hurts the most when their money and assets is subjected to civil asset forfeiture and thus has the greatest potential to deter the crimes associated with illegal drugs. In addition to this, the exercise takes profits from crimes and hands them over to the police who can use it to advance the law enforcement agenda.

The premise that rights of innocent parties such as spouses and children are violated by asset forfeiture maybe a morally right argument since punishing families for the crimes one family member unfairly punishes children and breeds homelessness. Be that as it may, this premise regarding the violation of the rights of the innocent is legally false because the law provides for compensation and reparations for those affected by the due process of the law. In addition to this, various Acts exist that seek to standardize forfeiture across all crimes, address counterproductive incentives, and simplify procedures all in an effort to protect property rights and individual liberty. Defenses against forfeiture exist, for instance the innocent owner defense is applicable in the case that the owner was unaware of his or her property being used in the event of a crime or in the process of conducting criminal activities.

The argument here that leans towards an effective balance between achieving public safety and the protection of ones right to individual property is valid. Individuals should not keep the fruits of their crime if they are proven guilty of a crime. Criminal profits should be separated from criminals not only to remove the incentive others may have to commit similar crimes but also to return property to victims of crime since no criminal deserves to or has the right to keep money or property obtained from dealing drugs. Compared to the restitution statutes, asset forfeiture laws permit for a more effective and swift restoration of property to victims of crimes. Compared to a jail sentence, many criminals fear most the loss of their bank accounts, businesses, fancy cars and vacation homes making asset forfeiture not only an effective deterrent against crime but also a sufficient punishment for the criminal. The ends of justice can be achieved in many ways that does not necessarily involve prosecution and incarceration, asset forfeiture provides an effective avenue through which victims of crime and their communities are not only compensated but also protected while the criminal is punished as well.

Government seizure of property of convicted drug dealers is a viable way to combat the drug problem despite the argument that it violates the rights of innocent parties such as spouses and children.

Share with your friends
Order Unique Answer Now

Add a Comment