Real-Life Decision Making -- Solution
You seize the guns and ducks and send the man to court.
You think to yourself, "I have caught him red-handed. He has five ducks
-- one over the limit. I can seize the ducks and guns as evidence. If I drag
this out and try to find an interpreter, it will tie up a lot of my time and
will probably be a waste of money. After all, what can the man say to explain
this? I have caught him in the act."
However, when the man is questioned in court with an interpreter present,
he has an explanation. "I shot only four ducks," he says. "My hunting dog
swims out in the water and brings me back the ducks that I have shot. But
when he finds a dead duck in the water, he doesn't know whether my ammunition
killed it or whether another hunter shot it. So he brought in one that wasn't
mine.
"I know it wasn't mine because I had not made any shots for quite a while
and the dog was just out having a swim when he found the fifth duck."
The judge believes the hunter's explanation and finds him
not guilty. What is worse, the judge glares at you and says, "Next time, I
hope you won't waste the court's time with cases that you didn't investigate
properly."
Your supervisor is not pleased with you either. She phones you to remind
you that your job involves doing proper investigation before initiating legal
proceedings.
"Law enforcement isn't always black and white. When you are doing an investigation,
things aren't always as they seem. A good investigator would do some digging
before reaching a conclusion," says Daniel Boyco. "We want to catch the bad
guys and let the good guys go."