Thinking Skills: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving

4.10 Responding with further argument 193

The third piece also considers the

consequences of allowing criminals to become

role models. It obviously supports the argument.

Rights – and wrongs

Probably the most important part of the

argument in ‘Time to get tough’ is the issue of

people’s rights. As observed when we were

evaluating the argument, the author clearly

assumes – and wants us to assume – that

ex-convicts don’t have the same rights as other

people, especially their victims, because they

have chosen a life of crime. Opposed to this is

the view that once the criminal has served their

prison sentence, then their debt to society has

been paid in full, and they come out with all

their human rights restored. As we know, the

author tries to rubbish this view as ‘woolly-

minded’ thinking. But that doesn’t stop you

from developing it more sympathetically in

your own argument. For example:

[5] It is the job of courts to punish criminals

who are caught. Unless their crime is bad

enough for a life sentence, they only lose

their human rights while the sentence

lasts. When they are released they

become ordinary citizens again, and

should have the same rights as all other

citizens, especially if they have learned

from their mistakes and are trying to ‘go

straight’. This is not woolly-minded at all.

What is woolly-minded is using our

feelings of sympathy for the victims as an

argument for punishing ex-convicts for the

rest of their lives. That’s unjust. As for the

victims’ right, yes, they do have the right to

see the person who has harmed them

punished. But the courts decide how

much, not the victims, or the media.

Balancing ‘for’ and ‘against’

Of course you may not disagree with the

author’s reasoning in the way the last critic

does. Instead you may agree with the author

that the law as it stands gives too little

consideration to the victims’ feelings. You might

glamorous or romantic like it often is in

fiction, it’s ugly and dangerous.

[4] Young people admire celebrities and

want to be like them. If you let big-time

gangsters and murderers become

celebrities you give young people a very

bad example to follow. Criminals become

role models. Also you give them the idea

they can be rich and famous by being

wicked and violent.

What point is being made in each of these

lines of further argument? Do they support

the argument in the article, or do they

challenge it?

Activity

Commentary
These were all examples of relevant and
perceptive further argument. Whether you
agree with what they say or not, they make a
valuable contribution to the debate.
Argument [2] supports the author’s
conclusion far more than it challenges it,
though it takes a quite different line of approach.
It would make a good response to any suggestion
that criminals can turn over a new leaf or put
crime behind them. It implies that criminal
celebrities will go on being dishonest if it suits
them. As you might expect, this student went on
to conclude that, given their records, they do
not deserve to keep the money they make.
The next extract [3] introduces the idea that
there can be good consequences from
criminals becoming actors and writers. This is
not an angle that is covered by the author, but
it is a relevant point to consider. Experiences
of life in the criminal world and in prison do
add to public awareness. If this is a good
thing – and the student claims that it is – then
allowing criminals to become writers, actors
and so on does have a useful purpose. It would
follow that there is some justification for
rewarding them, which of course challenges
rather than supports the author’s conclusion.