100 word response
1 reference/intext citation
Due 1/10/2025
Shroeder
Post 2 Q2:
The orientations of trying to prove a case and uncovering the truth aren’t necessarily different. If investigators coexist, between both, it takes balance. The main goal should be uncovering the truth. Uncovering the truth despite the tension is the better route. This is because integrity and having multiple different people on the case are more beneficial. Having more than one other person allows for group work to consider multiple theories rather than being tunnel vision. This allows for possible leads or building a stronger case in general. It does just that and avoids mistakes and confirmation biases. With uncovering the truth, it helps investigators to focus on seeking justice, not just winning the case, but simply helping someone like a victim’s life. However, the limitation of uncovering the truth can be more tedious and time-consuming as reaching out to experts and revisiting evidence takes up more time. It can be difficult for prosecutors to prove their point in court as proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is with given evidence. An example of uncovering the truth would be the Innocence Project as these cases are typically complicated as they are. The Innocence is an organization that takes on wrongfully convicted individuals using tools like DNA testing. “During the last quarter century, there have been 325 DNA exonerations in the US (1989-2014). What seemingly started as a few tragic examples of wrongful convictions has turned into a growing body of cases (and individuals), allowing for deep investigation and research to determine why these injustices occur and how they might be prevented” (West, Meterko, 2015).
