In criminal investigations, what is the danger of using inductive reasoning over deductive reasoning?
What will be an ideal response?
Inductive logic does not always give us a strong conclusion. Weak inductions are faulty and do not give us a strong inductively reasoned statement. Deductive reasoning is reasoning based on specific pieces of evidence to establish proof that a suspect is guilty of an offense—for example, identifying muddy footprints outside a window where a burglary has occurred. An issue would be whether the footprints belonged to an occupant of the house, to the burglar, or to someone else.
You might also like to view...
The purpose of a pre-sentence investigation is not:
a. to help the judge determine a sentence b. to make the defendant feel better about prison c. to gather life history information for the court d. to interview those close to the defendant
The acronym used to recognize the goals and objectives of the criminal investigation process is _________
Fill in the blank(s) with correct word
Officer Jones explains to John that local police departments are responsible for the "nuts and bolts" of law enforcement work and are probably not the agencies to conduct full investigations on terrorists. Which would most likely not fall under the responsibilities of a local police department?
a. investigating crimes b. deterring crimes through patrol activities c. participating in trial proceedings d. educating the public on fire protection
In reality, ______________ is more a philosophy than a model to use when confronted with an issue or problem
Fill in the blank(s) with correct word