73. The author of this editorial asserts that trespassing, vandalism, and theft
6 {" E. [# s1 J5 n- ]# {6 Sassociated with stealing fruit from farms is a trivial problem and, as a result, enacting # V% J, Y1 I7 D, z% d9 h
laws to protect farm- and land-owners from these crimes is a waste of lawmakers' time.
0 K( C5 n5 T6 oIn support of this claim, the author points out only that the nation's cities are plagued by 6 ~1 W- u D& l6 i" E5 n
far more serious problems of violence and crime. To the extent that this author has 9 [) V( @; e& G; C, l! V
provided any argument at all, it is a poor one,2 M3 T! {. H/ d0 i
First of all, the author unfairly assumes that if lawmakers are taking rural crime ; r% m" u O5 }: D
issues seriously, then they cannot be taking urban crime issues seriously. The author is
0 J9 \8 T9 D( {) C: Qpresenting a false dilemma by imposing an either-or choice between two courses of $ G4 v8 r+ t1 ]# X
action that need not be mutually exclusive. It is equally possible that legislators can
$ e5 p+ U5 _9 _* taddress both areas of concern concurrently.
( T* V0 h" s' j9 Y, ^ Secondly, the argument relies on the assumption that the legislators in question
6 _" X% G, t( Zhave the opportunity to address urban crime problems. However, we are not told V9 \5 _4 ?1 E# g0 V* \" B. R: d
whether this legislature's jurisdiction encompasses both rural and urban areas. If it
, j$ h4 w7 k* d( ?+ iencompasses only rural areas, then the author's implicit conclusion that the legislators in : V! z+ x0 ]0 l# V/ ^" L
this region should instead be addressing urban crime problems would be completely 5 W: X& Z8 A: O3 x. T0 G
undermined.6 `7 w. R; r! `2 o) E+ [2 [
Finally, the author unfairly trivializes the severity of rural crime by simply " E! X: W+ d3 t r& N$ ?$ ^
comparing it with urban crime. While trespassing, vandalism, and fruit-stealing may
$ P! w& b$ I' _6 S! Eseem minor peccadilloes, especially compared to violent urban crimes, these rural ) _. k, L& Z0 q) ]) ~. U4 ~" ~ Q) h0 N2 F
crimes might nevertheless result in serious financial damage to farm owners, depending ) f( B, t' c* Z8 W/ k' Z
on the frequency and extent of the violations. The author fails to provide evidence for
3 m" M& D* a7 V2 }the claim that these rural crimes are trivial. Instead, the author attempts to call attention : G9 I5 T0 |+ i7 Z+ D+ W. c
to a more dramatic but potentially irrelevant problem.
+ v% Y& v* D3 L In conclusion, the argument is weak. It potentially distorts the alternatives 0 T6 F1 w- ?6 X
available to legislators in the region, as well as deflecting attention from the problem at $ P) G- F' \: ^% U w4 V, ^4 \0 k
hand. To better evaluate it, we would need more information about the geographical
$ J$ p1 ~# ~% t* `; M) F/ L! B7 escope of this legislature's jurisdiction and about the extent of the fruit-stealing problem 4 i, m# R7 S, Y; v/ O9 F: a% F
in the region. |