February 07, 2010
Three Strikes and the Whole Enchilada
Two arguments in this article is that “three strike rules cause the crime rate to decline,” and the crime rate had been declining before the “three strike rule” was put into effect.
1. The first premise and conclusion is that since the three strikes law was passed the crime rate has gone down 38 percent. The second premise and conclusion is that the records of 3500 criminal defendants in Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco was analyzed before and after the law was put in place and there was no evidence that the law was a deterrent to crime. 2. Yes both premises support the conclusions.
3. Both of the arguments are deductive valid because both are based on study showing that the crime rate went down. 4. The arguments are weak because the first arguments states that the crime rate went down 38 percent but didn’t mention that some of the newly released paroles and criminals move to another state without the three strikes law. The second argument is weak because it states that they did an investigation on 3500 criminals in three cities but did not go into detail as to how many from each city was analyzed. 5. Both premises are plausibly true because of the information that is given at the time. 6. The premises could be difficult to prove if the valid information is not presented on both premises.