If you said the police could only do one or the other, there’d be a false dichotomy. But if you acknowledge that they have a finite amount of resources that can be spent in various exclusive ways, then it’s not a fallacy to say that they should be spending it one way over the other - it’s a value judgement.
Agreed, although in most cases, it’s probably a value judgment based on scant information - that is, the person complaining has no idea how much resource is budgeted to various other kinds of police work, compared to this.
So it could be hasty generalisation, combined with cognitive bias (this is all I ever see the police doing, therefore, this is all the police actually do)
So it sounds like to me that people making this claim have left themselves open to a large burden of proof test. If they don’t provide the evidence to back up their assertions, their argument is just baseless speculation?
I’m a little fuzzy exactly how burden of proof in arguments work, anyway.
Well, you could ask them to make an argument. Make them demonstrate how police working on more serious crime has a higher benefit than writing traffic tickets. Compare the reduction in homicides per police manhour vs reduction in injuries from traffic accidents with increased traffic monitoring. That’s where the actual argument is.
But they’re not necesarily being fallacious. It’s a valid value judgement to say that you prefer a society in which more police resources are spent catching criminals vs enforcing traffic laws.
According to a police friend road traffic legislation is a very specialised subject and those who work with it are experts. It wouldn’t be very cost efficient to train people to work in that field and then have them do other stuff instead.
Why don’t we just admit that speeding tickets are a tax, levied on those who wish to drive faster than the posted speed limits. So, integrate a device into the car’s computer, and record the miles/duration where the vehicles is driven over the limit (a roadside transponder can do this)-send a monthly bill to the violators. This would be more efficient and waste less police resources.
Speeding tickets, speed-traps etc. are not just to make money. The prime reason for them is to make people slow down, especially at places where many accidents have happened/could happen, thus reducing the numbers of accidents and fatalities.
There’s nothing illogical about saying a particular worker should be spending more time on job X instead of job Y. However, if you don’t have any idea how much time is spent on X and Y, nor do you state (and support) the appropriate mix of time spent on X and Y, what kind of argument are you submitting? I don’t think it’s a fallacy so much as it’s an empty argument, there’s no meat on them bones.
“It’s more important that police solve murders than ticket speeders.” Gee, thanks J. Edgar, I wouldn’t have thought that one up all on my own.
“Those” people are complaing that “they” recieved a speeding ticket.
I question what they think is a serious crime/criminal. Issuing speeding tickets reduces the numbers of speeders along a particular section of roadway. If I “knew” that I could not or would never be given a speeding ticket on I-88, I would never, ever drive on I-88. Why? Because the only people driving on I-88 would be the people driving their cars as fast as the car will go. You’ll have a mix of 95 mph to 180 mph vehicles. Good luck merging into that. Some of them won’t survive the trip and they will take other drivers with them when they crash.
There would be less of a chance of getting killed in an armed robbery and armed robbery is generally considered to be a serious crime.
Society has decided that there should be speed limits and that those speed limits should be enforced. Enforcement means issuing tickets for speeding. My advice to people who whine that police should be spend more time chasing serious criminals is that if they and everyone else stopped breaking the law by speeding, there would be more police available to deal with serious criminals.