The following appeared in a recommendation from the president of Amburg’s Chamber of Commerce.

“Last October the city of Belleville installed high-intensity lighting in its central business district, and vandalism there declined within a month. The city of Amburg has recently begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district, but the rate of vandalism there remains constant. We should install high-intensity lighting throughout Amburg, then, because doing so is a more effective way to combat crime. By reducing crime in this way, we can revitalize the declining neighborhoods in our city.”

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

The premise of the statement above is that the installation of high-intensity lighting in Amburg’s downtown region will deter individuals from committing vandalism in the area. It is reasonable to assume that the location of things, especially crime, affects the likelihood of their occurrence. However, the assertion that crime will not occur in the city if high lighting is installed is flawed. If the lighting is so bright that the criminals cannot see what they are doing, they cannot be deterred. Moreover, if criminals cannot hide in the shadows, the city will be much more vulnerable to crime, as the criminals will be visible from a greater distance. Therefore, the assertion that high lighting will discourage crime in Amburg is not convincing at all; in fact, it is rather foolhardy, as it will only serve to draw more attention to the already crime-ridden areas of the city.

The idea mentioned in the statement is that by lighting the downtown district, the crime rate will drop. However, the city suffers from a lack of funding, and the money to install such lighting could be utilized more effectively in other areas, such as improving road infrastructure and education for the poor. Furthermore, installing lighting only in certain parts of town encourages people to congregate in the lighted areas, further encouraging crime. Moreover, such lighting may actually attract criminals to the city, as it advertises to criminals that Amburg is a well-lit area. (This may be especially true for criminals who live in other, less well-lit cities.) A more effective method of discouraging crime would be to fortify public areas, install security cameras, and hire more police officers. (Even having a police officer stationed downtown during certain hours can be an effective deterrent.)The claim that light will discourage crime in Amburg is flawed in that the city lacks the necessary funding. Even if it were able to adequately fund this improvement, installing lighting only in certain parts of the city will not deter criminals from committing crimes. Placing bright lights in the downtown area will only attract more criminals.

The author also states that crime will continue in the city if the criminals are not deterred by high lighting. However, criminals do not always act rationally. They are opportunists, and criminals rarely commit crimes in well-populated areas. A criminal who decides to commit a crime in a well-lit area is likely to take other precautions, such as wearing dark clothing and making certain noises. Even if he is caught, he will most likely get a lesser sentence than he would if he committed the crime in a darker area. Therefore, the installation of high lighting in the downtown area will not discourage criminals from committing crimes there.

The author’s assertion that increased police patrols will solve all of the crime problems in the city is also questionable. Police officers are a resource that the city has already invested in. Therefore, it would be more cost effective to hire more police officers than to install more lighting. Furthermore, the installation of more lighting will only attract more criminals to the city, and the police will not have the resources to monitor all of the lights, which will increase the number of crimes occurring.

The author also argues that the criminals will see the lights as policemen patrolling on bicycles. However, not all criminals will view the police in this manner. Criminals tend to avoid areas that are heavily patrolled by police officers. They will instead consider the area to be unsafe and therefore avoid going there. Moreover, not all criminals are accustomed to seeing policemen on bicycles. The police should instead focus on higher forms of crime prevention, such as installing surveillance cameras and placing unmarked cars in certain parts of the city.

The statement’s claim that by causing criminals to relocate to other areas, the installation of lighting will revitalize the declining neighborhoods in Amburg is questionable as well. If the criminals are driven away from the downtown area, they will cause an increase in crime in other areas of the city. If policemen cannot prevent crimes that occur in the downtown area, it will only lead to more crime occurring in the city as a whole.

The author’s claim that Amburg has experienced a decline in crime as a result of installing high lighting within its downtown district is flawed. Even if Amburg can control crime in its downtown district, it cannot control crime in other areas of the city. Therefore, installing high lighting will be a waste of time and money.

Total
0
Shares
Total
0
Share