The following activity helps you sharpen your skills in recognizing deceptive reasoning. The statements below are derived from the viewpoints in this chapter. Beside each one, mark the letter of the type of deceptive appeal being used. More than one type of tactic may be applicable. If you believe the statement is not any of the listed appeals, write N.
1. The Supreme Court has a greater obligation to protect the rights of victims than those of criminals.
2. It is clear to every intelligent person that the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, does not bar the use of victim impact statements.
3. Victim reforms will destroy the constitutional rights of the accused.
4. The conservative, prejudiced Supreme Court judges are too stupid to recognize the rights of the accused.
5. Every decent lawyer believes the harm a victim suffered because of a defendant should be considered when determining punishment.
6. Victims have absolutely no rights at all.
7. Everyone agrees that victim reforms are false promises made by legislators seeking to please voters worried about crime.
8. The victims’ rights movement developed because victims of crime felt they had no rights in the criminal justice system.
9. Thurgood Marshall, a pro-criminal, bleeding-heart liberal, considers the harm a victim suffered irrelevant in a criminal trial.
10. As Justice John Paul Stevens correctly points out, the defendant should have more rights than the state in a criminal trial.
11. Victim impact statements force juries to base their decisions on emotion rather than on objective facts.
12. As Deborah Kelly, chair of the American Bar Association’s Victims’ Committee, accurately concludes, victims’ satisfaction with the criminal justice system depends more on how they were treated than how severely their assailants were punished.
13. Everyone knows that judges let criminals off too easily. “There’s Always Someone Worse Off Than Yourself” Wiles/Rothco
14. Intelligent people agree that victims’ rights deny the accused the right to a fair and impartial trial.
15. As the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, William H. Rehnquist, states, there is no constitutional rule that excludes victim impact statements.
To identify the type of deceptive appeal being used in each statement, we need to understand the different types of tactics commonly used. Here are some of the types of deceptive appeals:
1. Emotional Appeal: Manipulating the emotions of the audience to divert their attention from the real issue.
2. Ad Hominem: Attacking the character or personal traits of an individual rather than addressing the issue at hand.
3. Straw Man: Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
4. Generalization: Making broad statements about a group or category without considering individual differences.
5. False Dilemma: Presenting only two options as the possible solutions when there are actually more alternatives.
6. Appeal to Authority: Using the opinion or influence of an authority figure to support an argument.
7. Bandwagon: Appealing to the popularity or consensus of the majority to persuade others to adopt the same viewpoint.
Now, let's analyze each statement and identify the type(s) of deceptive appeal being used:
1. Emotional Appeal (E): The statement tries to evoke an emotional response by emphasizing the protection of victims' rights over criminals'.
2. N: No deceptive appeal is used since it is stating a personal belief without directing it towards any opposing argument.
3. False Dilemma (FD): The statement suggests that victim reforms will result in the destruction of the accused's constitutional rights.
4. Ad Hominem (AH): The statement attacks the intelligence of conservative Supreme Court judges rather than addressing the issue at hand.
5. Generalization (G): The statement claims that every decent lawyer believes the harm suffered by a victim should be considered in determining punishment, making a broad assumption about all lawyers.
6. N: No deceptive appeal is used since it is stating a personal belief without directing it towards any opposing argument.
7. Bandwagon (B): The statement claims that everyone agrees that victim reforms are false promises made by legislators seeking votes.
8. Generalization (G): The statement implies that victims' rights movement developed because victims felt they had no rights in the criminal justice system, assuming every victim felt that way.
9. False Dilemma (FD): The statement suggests that Thurgood Marshall, a liberal, considers the harm a victim suffered irrelevant in a criminal trial.
10. N: No deceptive appeal is used since it is stating a personal belief without directing it towards any opposing argument.
11. Straw Man (SM): The statement misrepresents victim impact statements as the cause of juries basing their decisions on emotion rather than facts.
12. Appeal to Authority (AA): The statement cites Deborah Kelly, the chair of the American Bar Association’s Victims’ Committee, to support the claim about victims' satisfaction with the criminal justice system.
13. Generalization (G): The statement claims that judges let criminals off too easily without considering individual cases.
14. Straw Man (SM): The statement misrepresents victims' rights as denying the accused the right to a fair and impartial trial.
15. Appeal to Authority (AA): The statement cites Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to argue that there is no constitutional rule excluding victim impact statements.
Please note that the analysis above is based on the assumptions made from the statements provided.