In their essays, Mangu-Ward, Joh, and Quarmby rely on various types of research and multiple perspectives to support their claims about the expectations of privacy outlined in the Fourth Amendment.
All of the author’s explore different topics in the popular Fourth Amendment debate, but their essays do share a common structure. In “The Curious Writer,” Ballenger states that, “ the best argument essays make a clear claim, but they do it by bowing respectfully to the complexity of the subject” (273). Ballenger explains this writing style as one of discovery, where “initially withholding judgment and asking questions” can lead to a central argument (272). Mangu-Ward, Joh, and Quarmby each use this technique to help guide their research. For example, Joh poses various questions about the use of abandoned DNA throughout her paper. She begins by asking in her introduction, “What are the consequences of allowing this investigative method to remain unregulated?” (30) As the paper develops, she proposes more questions, such as, “what should happen to samples of abandoned DNA? And To what uses could the samples be put? “ (33). These questions help her to eventually build her central claim which appears fully in her conclusion when she writes that DNA data banking itself is not bad, but that it has arisen “without general public awareness and without discussion of how it may be regulated against abuse” (36). In his essay, Quarmby’s main argument is that the Fourth amendment does not necessarily protect citizens from the futuristic idea of national identification cards. To support this claim, he draws on more than one side of the controversial topic. At one point, he quotes a Harvard law Professor who argues that, “the state should create a “near foolproof system of identification using fingerprints, or for even greater accuracy, DNA information” to improve national security (38). He then turns right around and explains the opponents’ argument, writing that, “that the scope of the suggested DNA identification system should be limited” (38). Mangu-Ward does much of the same in her essay, which examines the constitutionality of surveillance cameras in regards to the Fourth Amendment. She claims that “debate about the use and abuse of surveillance cameras is worthwhile,” but that giving up some privacy creates many security benefits” (11). In her paper, she points out both the negative side of camera surveillance, such as the several cases of video camera abuse in courts today (12), and also the positive side, including citizen protection from police misbehavior, (13) to create her argument. The common “discovery” technique that Quarmby, Magnu-Ward, and Joh use in their writing is highly effective. By exploring multiple perspectives, all three authors do not just make claims, but examine the assumptions and reasons behind their claims. This allows them to create convincing and unbiased arguments.
Each of the three authors uses a different source of research to support their central claims, all of which, I think, are equally effective. Mangu-Ward’s essay is unique in that she draws on personal experience as evidence by occasionally adding her own opinion throughout the paper. In regards to the extensive amounts of records authority have access to, she writes, “My credit card company has long known where I buy underwear, but I don’t lay awake nights worried that prosecutors might demand knowledge of my preferences in skivvies” (12). This technique is somewhat humorous and also effective because it adds yet another perspective to the essay. Joh’s essay, on the other hand, employs mostly primary research. She is a law professor at the University of California at Davis and conducts research in the areas of criminal law and procedure (36). She occasionally makes reference to secondary sources, but much of the research is her own. Her evidence, though, is still made up facts, which provides the reader with hard evidence of her opinion. Finally, the majority of Quarmby’s evidence comes from secondary research. He relies on outside sources to back up the claims he is making. His reference to other sources makes his claims appear more legitimate and less like an opinion. Though each essay contains different types research, each author uses the variety of sources in an effective and convincing manner.
My own beliefs and values do have some effect on how I read these essays. I have heard about these topics before, and therefore, approach the articles with somewhat of a bias. I am already firm in my beliefs and am less willing, therefore, to accept new ideas. This presents a challenge to the author because it is more difficult for him/her to persuade me of the claim they are making.
Word Count: 770
