The three essays are all centered on the debate surrounding the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment stipulates that United States citizens have the right to no unwarranted search and seizures. “Is Privacy Overrated? The Merits, Drawback, and Inevitability of the Surveillance Nation” by Katherine Mangu-Ward is a look into the extensive use of surveillance cameras. She argues that the cameras are doing little to invade our privacy. She says that with all of the other way one can be tracked such as “credit cards, EZ passes, and bank records” (Mangu-Ward, 12) the cameras are not infringing on her privacy more than anything else already is. She also stipulated that the cameras have many positive benefits such as a checking system for police officers. The excerpt from “Reclaiming “Abandoned DNA: The Fourth Amendment and Genetic Privacy” by Elizabeth E. Joh is a cry to keep the collecting of DNA from starting. She fears that at some point down the road it might be used to “identify and segregate those who possess a ‘crime’ gene” (Joh 34). She is afraid that in the long run the advancement of science might be used for not its original intended purpose and could have long standing repercussions. The excerpt from “The Case for National DNA Identification Cards” by Ben Quarmby argues the exact opposite. He thinks a national DNA bank should be established to help with national security. In Mangu-Ward’s essay she uses both personal examples and facts. When she says “my credit card company has long known where I buy my underwear, but I do not lay awake nights worried that prosecutors might demand knowledge of my preferences in skivvies”, (Mangu- Ward, 12) she is using a personal example that help the reader understand her point of view. At the same time she references Sean Bell’s death and the London subway bombing, which provide examples of actual times when the security cameras have been able to help convict the culprits of their respective crime. It does not appear that Mangu-Ward has done any primary research; she relies on what she has learned from other and her prior thoughts to form her essay. She is still effective in proving her point though because she successfully incorporates enough facts to make it believable with a slight sense of humor that is engaging toward the reader. In Joh’s “Reclaiming Abandoned DNA” she uses all facts to back up her essay. There are no personal antidotes that accompany her essay. She does however use many specific examples such as Adolph Laudenberg and John Athan to prove her point. Like Mangu-Ward, Joh relies heavily on secondary research, it does not appear that she has gone and done work in the field, however she is a law professor so she most likely has had prior knowledge in the field. In Quarmby’s essay he also has no primary research he relies on research done by other people.

I think that a good essay much use both primary and secondary research and both personal experience and actual facts to make a good essay. Balance of both is needed to correctly persuade the reader. It can be done without all types; however, I think an essay that maximizes them all would be the best. The essays from today’s readings all lacked any evidence that they went out into the field and discovered something. I think if they have done this their respective essays all could have been a lot better. I think some times personal antidotes help the reader think on a less broad scale and think more about how it could effect them personally.

I think previous beliefs play a large role in argument essays. Before I started reading all of the fourth amendment essays I already had a definite opinion on where I think the line should be drawn. After reading Magnu-Ward’s essay, I defiantly agreed with her. I think that people spend far to much time worrying about being on camera like she said, even if you are not seen on camera, it is still pretty easy to trace. As far as the question on a DNA bank goes, I prior thoughts came in to play and I still believe what I originally thought. A DNA bank would only be for good. I don’t see a time when we will be using DNA to find a “crime marker’, that just seems to far fetched and straight out of a movie. However, I think that it would be a very strong deterrent against crime.