Part 1: MEMORANDUM
To: [Write Name of Willy’s Senior Partner Here]
From: Willy Understand
Date: March 9, 2021
RE: Motorcycle Helmet Laws
Issue
Motorcycle crashes are a great concern since they cause fatalities and head injuries. Motorcycle helmets were designed to help reduce motorcycle-related deaths and injuries. However, antagonists of motorcycle helmets claim that motorcycle helmet laws infringe on personal liberty (Vance, 2010). This raises the big question: “Is it an appropriate role of the government (Federal or State) to have a mandatory law requiring people to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle?”
Brief Answer
Yes. Because helmets can reduce motorcycle-related fatalities and injuries and financial resources, there is a need for a federal mandate. This will help ensure all states across the U.S. adopt and implement motorcycle helmet laws. Compared to incentivizing individual states to adopt and implement their own helmet laws, a system-wide change would help convince all motorists to wear helmets.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Facts
Riding a motorcycle helmetless has consequences. It can lead to unnecessary injuries, deaths, healthcare costs. The evidence that helmets reduce crash-related injuries and save lives is overwhelming. Motorcycle crashes often cause head injuries, the main cause of motorcycle-related deaths.
According to an investigation carried out by the University of Southern California, motorcyclists who ride helmetless and experience crashes or accidents are 40% more likely to suffer from serious head injuries (“U.S. Department of Transportation Campaign Safe and Sober,” 1996). The investigation also found that wearing a helmet significant prevents or reduces head and neck injuries among motorcyclists and passengers. It is estimated that helmets saved roughly 7,400 motorcyclists’ lives between 1984 and 1995 (“U.S. Department of Transportation Campaign Safe and Sober,” 1996). Motorcycle helmet laws are very effective when it comes to reducing motorcycle-related head injuries and fatalities. For instance, in Louisiana, 30% fewer motorcycle-related deaths were recorded in 1982, a year after the state reinstated its motorcycle helmet law (“U.S. Department of Transportation Campaign Safe and Sober,” 1996). Besides, helmet law help reduce unnecessary healthcare costs. A wide range of studies indicate that the healthcare costs of motorcyclists who ride helmetless average $3,000 more than their counterparts (“U.S. Department of Transportation Campaign Safe and Sober,” 1996). Therefore, a federal mandate should be adopted and implemented to incentivize all motorcyclists to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle.
The “self-protection” theory of public benefit holds that decision to neglect one’s own safety affects more than just the individual. Thus, based on this theory, a State may protect itself by forcing its citizens to protect themselves. In this case, motorcyclists should wear helmets to protect themselves. To achieve this, a federal mandate ought to be adopted and implemented.
Part 2
Suppose Arizona decides to prosecute a motorcyclist if the motorcyclist fails to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. During the prosecution, the casework will move through the court system as follows. To begin with, the person is arrested and brought before the court for an initial appearance. Typically, in Arizona, the defendant must be brought for an initial appearance within 24 hours (AZ Courts, n.d). At the initial appearance, statements are recorded, and the defendant is informed why he/she is being charged. The defendant will also be informed of his/her rights, including the right to remain silent and have an attorney.
Next, a preliminary hearing is held. At the preliminary hearing, witnesses are called to give their testimonies. The judge hears the evidence. If there is reasonable evidence to believe that the defendant committed the crime(s), the judge arraigns the defendant in the trial court. At the arraignment, the defendant may plead he or she is or not guilty. The defendant is sentenced if found guilty. If the defendant pleads not guilty, he or she will be arraigned for trial.
At the trial, the case is heard again and the case is determined. If found guilty, the defendant may appeal. The case is then transferred to the Court of Appeals (AZ Courts, n.d). The appellant court will review the documents from the trial court as well as hear oral arguments from the attorneys. Based on these documents and oral arguments, the appellant court will decide the case and issue an opinion. A majority of vote decides the case.
References
AZ Courts. (n.d). How a case moves through the court system. [Online]. Retrieve March 10, 2021, from https://www.azcourts.gov/guidetoazcourts/How-a-Case-Moves-Through-the-Court-System
U.S. Department of Transportation Campaign Safe and Sober. (1996, October). Motorcycle helmets: The facts of life. http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/NoMigrate/Mcfol2.pdf
Vance, L. M. (2010, May 21). Every crime needs a victim. Campaign for Liberty. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/05/laurence-m-vance/if-its-a-crime-it-has-a-victim/
