IS 100 Fall 2020: Homework Assignment 3 On Fallacies And Jud ✓ Solved

IS 100 Fall 2020: Homework Assignment 3 on Fallacies and Jud

IS 100 Fall 2020: Homework Assignment 3 on Fallacies and Judging Arguments- Chapter 5 Faulty Reasoning. Assignment: Create a list of fallacies you encountered while viewing the 60 Minutes segment on DUI homicide and reading "When Murder Loses its Meaning." You will need fallacies for both sides of the argument.

Explain each fallacy, and how it pertains to the video.

Please address them as follows: 1) DUI Homicide should be Prosecuted as Murder – List Fallacies Found by name, and describe. 2) DUI Homicide Should not be Prosecuted as Murder – List Fallacies Found by name, and describe.

3) Which Argument had the least Fallacies? 4) After completing your evaluation, using Critical Thinking skills, what is your opinion on the Prosecutor Claims? Decide whether depraved indifference applies in this case, and whether your opinion has changed since first viewing or with additional facts.

As a Judge, how would you rule on the charge? Background information: To convict a person of 2nd degree: The basis for the second-degree murder charge was the "depraved indifference" theory: Penal Law Section 125.25(2) states that a person is guilty of depraved indifference murder, when "under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person." For many years, this language confused almost everyone and led to prosecutors commonly charging murders as both intentional and depraved indifference, under the theory that if it wasn't the first, it had to be the second, hoping that if they threw both at the wall, something would stick. The Court of Appeals decision in People v. Payne clarified that depraved indifference referred to the defendant's state of mind, not to an external view of how horrible his conduct was. The defendant must have known and appreciated the potentially fatal consequences of his action and made the active decision to engage in the conduct nonetheless.

The material also asks students to consider additional facts and their impact on legal interpretation, including the relevance of the Payne decision and the dissection of how emotion and public policy influence perception of culpability. For this assignment, you should ground your analysis in the cited case law and statutory framework, and critically evaluate whether depraved indifference can justifiably be invoked in a given DUI homicide scenario.

Paper For Above Instructions

Fallacies Encountered for the Prosecution: DUI Homicide Should Be Prosecuted as Murder. In presenting the proposition that DUI homicide qualifies as murder, several fallacies may appear. First is the appeal to emotion (pathos): invoking vivid, tragic outcomes to compel agreement that a homicide must automatically be treated as murder, irrespective of the defendant’s state of mind. Second is false equivalence: equating reckless drunk driving with intentional or depraved-indifference murder solely on the consequence of death, rather than on the defendant’s mental state and the statutory elements of depraved indifference. Third is a hasty generalization: assuming that every drunk-driving death demonstrates depraved indifference, thereby ignoring cases where the requisite mental state is absent. Fourth is the straw man: portraying opponents as demanding a narrower, milder charge to avoid accountability, when they may simply be insisting on accurate application of the law. Fifth is confirmation bias: selectively highlighting cases that fit the murder label while ignoring distinctions that would support lesser charges (Copi et al., 2016; Paul & Elder, 2014; Weston, 2009). In the video, these fallacies may appear as rhetoric that emphasizes the tragedy of the outcome and uses emotion to push a murder label as the default response, potentially obscuring the nuanced state-of-mind requirement in depraved indifference analysis (Kahane & Cavender, 2015; Paul & Elder, 2014). (Payne v. State; People v. Payne, 2004)

Fallacies Encountered for the Defense: DUI Homicide Should Not Be Prosecuted as Murder. The defense’s framing often hinges on distinctions between murder and manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, anchored in the defendant’s mental state. Fallacies here include false equivalence: treating recklessness as the same as intent or depraved indifference when the law requires a specific mental state. Red herring: shifting focus to external circumstances—such as the vehicle type, seatbelting, or contributions of others—to divert attention from the core issue of mental state. Slippery slope: suggesting that expanding murder charges to cover all drunk-driving deaths will flood the system with excessive prosecutions. False attribution: attributing responsibility for death solely to policy failures or alcohol availability rather than to the defendant’s individual recklessness. Ad hominem regarding prosecutors’ motives and public policy campaigns can also arise, diverting from legal analysis to character judgments (Fisher, 2004; Weston, 2009; Paul & Elder, 2014). (People v. Payne, 2004)

Which Argument Had the Least Fallacies? In a rigorous evaluation, the argument most closely aligned with statutory language and case law—focusing on the defendant’s mental state, the elements of depraved indifference, and the requirement that the conduct create a grave risk of death—would have the least fallacious presentation. The Payne standard emphasizes state of mind rather than external sensationalism, making it less prone to emotional manipulation and more anchored in legal doctrine, though no argument is completely free of interpretive risk or plausible fallacious framing when presented in media and political discourse (Payne, 2004; New York Penal Law §125.25(2)). (Paul & Elder, 2014; Copi et al., 2016)

Opinion and Legal Evaluation. On the Prosecutor’s Claims, the central question is whether depraved indifference applies in this case under the statutory framework. Depraved indifference murder requires recklessly engaging in conduct that creates a grave risk of death and thereby causing death, with the defendant understanding the potential fatal consequences and proceeding anyway (New York Penal Law §125.25(2)). People v. Payne clarifies that depraved indifference concerns the defendant’s mental state; the external horror of the act does not alone establish the crime (Payne, 2004). In a hypothetical DUI homicide where the driver knowingly and consciously disregards the risk of death and continues to operate a vehicle, depraved indifference could apply. However, if the facts show mere recklessness without the requisite state of depraved indifference, a murder conviction would be inappropriate. The video’s framing suggests that emotional intensity can obscure precise legal analysis, so a careful evaluation anchored in the statute and Payne’s mental-state requirement is essential (Kahane & Cavender, 2015; Paul & Elder, 2014). In this analysis, my opinion aligns with applying depraved indifference where mental state evidence demonstrates knowledge of fatal risk and deliberate disregard; otherwise, lesser charges such as depraved-indifference-based manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide would be more fitting (Copi et al., 2016; Weston, 2009). (Payne; New York Penal Law §125.25(2))

Change in Viewpoint. If new facts indicate the driver’s actions were primarily negligent and lacking the conscious disregard required by depraved indifference, my stance would shift toward milder charges and a different legal framing, emphasizing proportional punishment and the law’s intent. Conversely, if the driver’s behavior shows clear awareness of the fatal risk and a deliberate continuation of the conduct, depraved indifference could be satisfied, supporting a murder verdict under the statute. This reflects the Payne framework: the defendant’s state of mind is central to guilt (Payne, 2004). (Brookfield, 2012; Paul & Elder, 2014)

Conclusion. The assignment highlights how fallacies can color public debate about criminal liability while illustrating the necessity of a precise legal standard for depraved indifference. A rigorous approach requires separating emotional responses from the factors the law actually requires: a specific mental state and a recklessly created grave risk that results in death. As future practitioners or scholars, students should practice identifying fallacies on both sides and grounding conclusions in statutory language and controlling case-law interpretations (Fisher, 2004; Copi et al., 2016).

References

• Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2014). Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life. Pearson.
• Weston, A. (2009). A Rulebook for Arguments (4th ed.). Hackett Publishing.
• Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2016). Introduction to Logic (14th ed.). Pearson.
• Fisher, A. (2004). The Logic of Real Arguments (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Brookfield, S. (2012). Teaching for Critical Thinking: Tools and Techniques to Help Students Learn. Jossey-Bass.
• People v. Payne, 3 N.Y.3d 266 (2004). Supreme Court of New York decision addressing the depraved indifference standard.
• New York Penal Law §125.25(2). Depraved indifference murder statute.
• 60 Minutes. (2009). DWR is it Murder. CBS News segment on DUI homicide and related legal questions.
• Heidgen, R. et al. (contextual reference to related New York homicide cases discussed in media coverage; case law excerpts referenced in material).