1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
aleksklad [387]
2 years ago
14

Why would admitting a mistake be disastrous for law enforcement? Is there a way to fix this?

English
1 answer:
stira [4]2 years ago
7 0

Answer:

Read Exp:

Explanation:

(I'll use arresting and convicting someone for a crime they didn't commit and putting them in prison then finding the real crook.)

So if they were to admit that they arrested the wrong guy the public would be outraged as well as the department would be looked down on and they could possibly even be sued. Their reputation as justice seekers would be ruined practically. Some ways they fix this is compensate the people with money for getting it wrong.

Hope this explains it well enough.

You might be interested in
How does the poem’s use of internal rhyme contribute to the tone of the raven
andreev551 [17]

Answer:

Internal rhymes are patterns of rhyming words inside the same line. This effect can increase the tension of the poem, as it can make the reader to accelerate the pace, or to slow it down by making more emphasis on the rhyming words

Explanation:

4 0
2 years ago
We are on the threshold of a new century, a new millennium. What will the
cupoosta [38]

Answer:

the new century will be repetition

5 0
3 years ago
Which of these philosophies is most closely associated with Thoreau?
zaharov [31]
Transcendentalism is the answer :) 
hope thz help!
5 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What are your thoughts on Van Gogh's work? (50 to 100 words or more)
MariettaO [177]

Answer:

As an art major in college, I was exposed to a lot for different artists, in my studies. I have also traveled to Italy, trying to satisfy my hunger for art from the renaissance period, the baroque, and Michaelangelo’s ceiling, and all the grandeur that is Rome, and my exposure to impressionism and the impressionist painters was not nearly that complete. I knew the artists, and their major works, from slides in Art history classes. But didn't seek or get a deeper understanding of impressionists until much later in life. When I went to the impressionist exhibit at the de Young museum in San Francisco, and I stood in the same room with, and saw the actual canvas that was home to Monet’s “Sunrise”, and Degas’ dancers, and “Whistler’s Mother” and many more. But I did not turn around and fight against the current of the crowd, trying to go back, and look again, and then, a third time, at the same painting, for any of them except Van Gogh “A Starry Night on the Rhone”.I could have looked at that painting for hours, days even, and not been tired of it. I have never seen anything like the way that paint on a simple panel moved, and breathed.VINCENT Van Gogh, in a simple manner, turned flat yellow dots into the light on the water that danced, into the night sky. Instead of painting the stars, or the lights, or the ripple in the water with his brush, he just made a yellow mark over the navy in a way that became those things.

I think his interpretation of light is much different than other impressionists. I think he portrays light and shadow in a way unique only to him. It makes sense. It is beautiful, yet most unpredictable. Had he not show us his vision of Starry Night, we would not be able to guess the language, the grammar of how he would produce this image.

Painters have a stunning ability to portray a three-dimensional vision, in two dimensions, that appears as if it is three. Vincent Van Gogh does not bring us back with that same sort of sleight of hand, through perspective, and shadows to the illusion of three-dimension.

He leaves us in the two, yet still manages to create a subtle, natural balance and movement.

A different sense of minimalism.

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Which argument is most clearly making an ad hominem fallacy?
blsea [12.9K]

Answer:

D. All I can say about my rival's idea is that he's a thief and he should be ignored.

Explanation:

Ad Hominem is a Latin word that means "against the man".

This particular fallacy of ad hominem is simply the act of going against sound logic when making an argument to make personal attacks on the speaker.

From the example above, there was a personal attack on the rival against his idea while bringing up the matter that he was a thief and should be ignored.

This is a very good example of Ad Hominem fallacy because he threw away sound logic while making his argument and instead chose personal attacks against his rival to score cheap points.

4 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • The Midnight News
    5·2 answers
  • (Pleas help me I got until tomorrow at 9:00 in the morning) PLEASE HELP
    13·1 answer
  • What is the New England Primer and what was it’s purpose?
    9·1 answer
  • About what percent kids with auditory processing disorder also have dyslexia?
    13·2 answers
  • Would u rather work in a social setting or a solitary setting
    9·1 answer
  • Identify the following as a simile or a metaphor.
    12·2 answers
  • What do you think makes a speech boring?
    11·2 answers
  • THE GIVER, PLZ HURRY, IM TIMED, WILL MARK BRAILIEST!!!
    10·1 answer
  • Why is it fitting that "The Lamb" is featured in a volume titled, Songs of Innocence?
    15·1 answer
  • Similarities between dogs and humans?
    15·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!