Charlotte Martin
Current Event 7
Mr. Ippolito
November 4th, 2019
Cowley, Stacy, and Jessica Silver-greenberg. “These Machines Can Put You in Jail. Don't Trust Them.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 Nov. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/business/drunk-driving-breathalyzer.html.
This article was written by Stacy Cowley and Jessica Silver-Greenberg, it talks about how breathalyzers are very inaccurate and you can be sent to jail based on false information. It states “Judges in Massachusetts and New Jersey have thrown out more than 30,000 breath tests in the past 12 months alone, largely because of human errors and lax governmental oversight.” The authors explain that these machines would miscalculate up to 40% incarruacy at times. They then say that these tests still remain unavailable, having every state have their pilce issue the test on drivers who are pulled over on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. The article states that this test is used because even though it it less accurate it is less expensive. “In most of the country, the threshold for illegal drunkenness is 0.08 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. The only way to measure that directly is to draw blood, which requires a warrant. Breath tests are simpler. Testing machines can go for $10,000 or more, and some two dozen companies sell them in the United States.”
Overall this article was very informative and educational. I did not know that the reason breathalyzers are used is because of costs and I did not know about their inaccuracy. At times I found the article would go on for too long, and was very wordy. Besides that I think it was very informative.
4 comments:
Ellie Dessart
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics C Odd
15 November 2019
Current Event 8 Comment
Citation:
Cowley, Stacy, and Jessica Silver-Greenberg. “These Machines Can Put You in Jail. Don't Trust
Them.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 Nov. 2019,
www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/business/drunk-driving-breathalyzer.html.
Link to Original Review:
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/2019/11/charlotte-martin-current-event-7-mr.html
Charlotte’s review was intriguing and informative. Firstly, she did a good job keeping her summary concise. As she herself said, the original article was lengthy and dragged on too long, so her own condensed version was easy to follow. Additionally, Charlotte incorporated numerous quotes from the article she reviewed. For example, she provided specific statistics when describing the inaccuracy of breathalyzers, “Judges in Massachusetts and New Jersey have thrown out more than 30,000 breath tests in the past 12 months alone, largely because of human errors and lax governmental oversight.” Finally, Charlotte did a nice job addressing and merging the different parts of the story. She took into account both sides: the support of breathalyzers in terms of cost and the argument against them in terms of inaccuracy.
While I enjoyed Charlotte’s review, there were some areas she could have improved on. Firstly, she did not include the second paragraph connecting the story to our study of forensics. While her review was interesting, it would have been nice to see her observations and connections to what we’re learning in class. Secondly, while I appreciated her inclusion of cited evidence, Charlotte could have condensed her quotes. For example, in the first paragraph, she wrote, “In most of the country, the threshold for illegal drunkenness is 0.08 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. The only way to measure that directly is to draw blood, which requires a warrant. Breath tests are simpler. Testing machines can go for $10,000 or more, and some two dozen companies sell them in the United States.” This quote is overly lengthy. To avoid this in the future, Charlotte may want to consider paraphrasing important information instead of letting the original article drive her review.
After reading Charlotte’s review, I was fascinated. Beforehand, I assumed breathalyzers are used because they are the only device of their kind available. While reading, I learned they are used because they are considered cost-efficient. As technology continues to advance and become more sophisticated, I wonder what other developments will arise. Perhaps eventually someone will replace the breathalyzer with a cheap, yet accurate alternative. Knowing there are other methods and possibilities out there to explore is exhilarating.
Charlotte Cagliostro
Forensics
C Odd / Current Event 8
11/15/19
Cowley, Stacy, and Jessica Silver-greenberg. “These Machines Can Put You in Jail. Don't Trust Them.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 Nov. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/business/drunk-driving-breathalyzer.html.
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/2019/11/charlotte-martin-current-event-7-mr.html
Charlotte wrote a nice review of the NY Times article, “These Machines Can Put You in Jail. Don't Trust Them.” There were three aspects of her piece that I specifically enjoyed. First, I liked Charlotte’s summary of the original article. She did a great job presenting the main ideas in a clear and concise manner. Second, I enjoyed Charlotte’s style of writing. She wrote in an engaging, yet informative manner that made me want to continue reading, which is not an easy task. Third, Charlotte did a great job incorporating relevant statistics in her review. The figures she included strengthened her piece and added legitimacy to her writing.
However, there were two aspects of Charlotte’s review that I disliked. First, she did not speak to the relevance of this topic. I was waiting for her to speak about why people should care about this subject, but she never did. Second, Charlotte’s critique of the article was extremely rushed. She devoted only a few sentences to that paragraph, and spoke in very general terms, which was disappointing.
One thing I learned through reading Charlotte’s review is that breathalyzers often have error rates of 40%, leading to many of the results / evidence being disregarded in court.
Nicky Frrokaj
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics C ODD
November 24, 2019
Cowley, Stacy, and Jessica Silver-greenberg. “These Machines Can Put You in Jail. Don't Trust Them.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 Nov. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/business/drunk-driving-breathalyzer.html.
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/2019/11/charlotte-martin-current-event-7-mr.html
Charlottes review of the New York Times article “These Machines Can Put You in Jail Don’t Trust Them” was very informative and interesting. Charlottes review of the article was very well written and her summary provided a lot of context and information. Charlotte also provided statistics that described the inaccuracy of the breathalyzers which provided information and clarity to how these breathalyzers have been imprecise and unreliable. Lastly, Charlotte did a good job of providing both sides of the debate and truly explaining them.
While Charlottes review is very informative I believe there are many points and aspects that she could’ve improved on. Firstly Charlotte’s review was very short and then didn’t provide a substantial and lengthy critiquing paragraph. Secondly, Charlotte and not use proper grammar author of the paragraph and it appeared to be very clunky and difficult to understand at times. Despite these aspects, her review was very instructive and an allowed for me to get a better understanding of the breathalyzer debate.
I learned many things from reading Charlotte’s review. The data she provided in her analysis was very well placed and proved the inaccuracy of the breathalyzers. before reading the article I believe breathalyzers were very well functioning and were usually very accurate. However after reading charlottes are you at enlighten me about the fact that these breathalyzers I have become increase exponentially in accurate and have resulted in many misleading arrests. Charlottes review was very enlightening and was very well written and essentially intrigued me greatly.
Nicky Frrokaj
Mr. Ippolito
Forensics C ODD
November 24, 2019
Cowley, Stacy, and Jessica Silver-greenberg. “These Machines Can Put You in Jail. Don't Trust Them.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 Nov. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/business/drunk-driving-breathalyzer.html.
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/2019/11/charlotte-martin-current-event-7-mr.html
Charlottes review of the New York Times article “These Machines Can Put You in Jail Don’t Trust Them” was very informative and interesting. Charlottes review of the article was very well written and her summary provided a lot of context and information. Charlotte also provided statistics that described the inaccuracy of the breathalyzers which provided information and clarity to how these breathalyzers have been imprecise and unreliable. Lastly, Charlotte did a good job of providing both sides of the debate and truly explaining them.
While Charlottes review is very informative I believe there are many points and aspects that she could’ve improved on. Firstly Charlotte’s review was very short and then didn’t provide a substantial and lengthy critiquing paragraph. Secondly, Charlotte and not use proper grammar author of the paragraph and it appeared to be very clunky and difficult to understand at times. Despite these aspects, her review was very instructive and an allowed for me to get a better understanding of the breathalyzer debate.
I learned many things from reading Charlotte’s review. The data she provided in her analysis was very well placed and proved the inaccuracy of the breathalyzers. before reading the article I believe breathalyzers were very well functioning and were usually very accurate. However after reading charlottes are you at enlighten me about the fact that these breathalyzers I have become increase exponentially in accurate and have resulted in many misleading arrests. Charlottes review was very enlightening and was very well written and essentially intrigued me greatly.
Post a Comment