4.8 Applying analysis skills 179
that crime shouldn’t pay, and provides two
examples of unacceptable income that nobody
could really argue with – profit from fraud and
from bank robbery. So, should any of this have
been included in the list of reasons; or are
these just introductory sentences? You may
have interpreted this part of the argument as a
premise (reason), on the grounds that, without
the principle, the argument wouldn’t really
make a lot of sense; and that, in a general sort
of way, it does support the conclusion that
profit from crime should be confiscated.
But on closer inspection this is not the best
and clearest interpretation of what the author is
aiming to achieve. For his argument is not really
about crimes such as fraud and bank robbery. In
fact, it is more or less taken for granted that the
profits from these crimes should be forfeited if
the criminal is convicted. No supporting
reasons are given and none are needed. The real
argument begins with the word ‘But.. .’ at the
start of paragraph 2. Reading it that way, the
first paragraph can be seen more as an
introduction than as part of the reasoning.
The shape of the whole argument is:income is direct or indirect, it is still profit
from crime.
You may already have noticed that
paragraph 3 is itself a complete argument: a
sub-argument within the overall argument.
Here it is in standard form:
Target: the counter-argument
But...
R1 Producers would say something like that
because they take some of the profit.
R2 Notorious gangsters need no talent;
their reputation is enough.IC Indirect income is still profit from crime.C This (counter-argument) is unacceptable.The next objection that the author anticipates
is that ex-convicts have the right to start again.
It is dismissed as a ‘woolly-minded’ argument,
and as one that ignores victims’ rights and
feelings. It also points out an unfairness in
that criminals gain from their crimes whereas
victims have no such opportunities.
These responses lead directly to the main
conclusion that all income from crime should
be confiscated.
3 As well as the responses to objections,
what other reasons are given in support of
the conclusion?Activity
Commentary
The final paragraph adds a further set of
reasons that directly support the conclusion.
They are: (1) that criminals make a choice;
(2) that if they make that choice, the door to
respectable wealth should be closed; and
(3) that if would-be criminals know they will
never be able to cash in on their crime, they may
think twice before choosing to be criminals.
What about the first paragraph: where does
it fit in, and what is its function? It states that
there is an established legal principle, namely