Trish Hanly Mangnall
19 April 2008
ENF612-90 Criminal Intelligence
Mark Stallo, Instructor

The basic intelligence cycle consists of five stages: Collection, Collation, Analysis,
Dissemination, and Feedback. (Boba, 2005) Any mistakes made in the early stages of data gathering and analysis will only be intensified in the later stages of the cycle. These errors can be made simply by not collecting the right data, by not collecting all the data, or by only collecting the data that supports your hypothesis. Further, interpreting the data wrong or making false assumptions or inferences about the data collected, will also lead the analysis and investigation in the wrong direction. (Ratcliffe, 2004)
Hypotheses are statements about a problem or an event that can be true or false.
Crime analysts typically have limited amounts of time to devote to every single analysis. By developing hypotheses applicable to the situation, the analysts are able to simplify their work and not waste time analyzing results that are not relevant. (Boba, 2005) Using results, data, observations, measurements and ‘facts’ the analyst formulates possible explanations
(hypotheses) and thoroughly confronts each explanation with the facts. By using critical thinking, the analyst is able to construct and understand a reasoned, rational argument. In addition, the analyst will also be able to recognize a false or fraudulent argument. (Sagan, 1996)
Logical fallacies pertain specifically to "arguments" - the form of reasoning we use when attempting to set up the basis for a view or opinion. Logic provides the rules for reasoning, so if our arguments or hypotheses are correct, they will conform to the principles of reason. If our arguments are incorrect (either because we violate a formal rule of logic or because we include false ideas) our arguing will be considered ‘fallacious’, and our conclusions will be false.
(Autonomist, 2004) Despite being aware of these inaccurate or intentionally misleading
2

applications of logic, one tends to allow them into their everyday way of thinking. There are many types of fallacies, but some of the more common are discussed here.
An “Ad Hominem” (against the person) Fallacy occurs when one attacks the arguer and not the argument. It is asserted that someone’s argument or statement is wrong, simply because of something that the person ‘is’. This argument consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking a characteristic or belief of the person who is making the argument or claim, rather than addressing the substance of the argument or claim. Some examples of this would be, "Paula says the security guard made the right decision, but this can't be true, because Paula was doing other things instead of watching the store." “You claim your dad is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well.” (Wikipedia contributors,
2008)
There are a few variations on the “Arguments and Appeals to Authority” Fallacy, also called “Appeal to Misleading Authority” Fallacy. This fallacy occurs when one accepts an argument or statement of fact as true - only because it is from an authority figure. Accepting a declaration from an authority - simply because they are considered an authority - can be damaging to an investigation. Regardless of who is making the claim, one must not take any statements at face value. For instance, if an expert says there were 25 deaths caused by guns, the analyst still needs to find out how these deaths were caused. Twenty five homicides are different than 25 deaths caused by suicide, accident and homicide.
Often the authority appealed to will be considered an expert in some field. “Einstein was against the war, and he is brilliant, therefore we should be against it too.” As brilliant as
3

Einstein was, his personal beliefs cannot be considered as truth for every situation. The same can be applied to religious figures. "If (religious figure) said it was so, it is so." Referring to scientific research published in a peer-reviewed journal can also be questionable. "I read in
Science that people with X can do so and so; therefore it must be true." Last, referring to what one is told by a teacher, parent, doctor, newscaster, veteran, or celebrity can also be detrimental to an investigation. "My pastor said he isn’t guilty, therefore it must be so." Often, the more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling is the argument.
Nonetheless, authority is never absolute, so all appeals to authority which assert that the authority’s wisdom is faultless are fallacious. (Sagan, 1996) Experts can be wrong, and just because they are experts in their field, doesn’t mean they are experts in every field, nor does it mean they are telling the truth. Authorities have made mistakes in the past.
Another Fallacy is that of “Observational Selection” or “the enumeration of favorable circumstances”. It can also be described as counting the hits and forgetting the misses. This goes hand in hand with the Overly Attached Hypothesis – people consider the evidence that supports their theory, and then they simply ignore any other evidence that contradicts it.
Studies have shown that some jurors make up their minds very early – even as early as opening arguments – and then appear to only preserve the evidence that seems to support their first impressions. Further, they reject or ignore the contrary evidence. (Golman, 1994) Analysts must ensure they don’t get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s theirs, or just because it is the first one that catches their fancy. They must ask why they are attached to it, and then find a reason to reject it. If they can find holes in their own theory, so can someone else. The goal is to come up with more than one hypothesis and develop a method of
4

alternative working hypotheses. When trying to explain something, they must think of all the different ways it could be explained, and then think of all the possible ways to disprove it.
(Sagan, 1996)
The Fallacy of “Excluded Middle” or false dichotomy is when one considers only the two extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities, when in reality there are one or more other options which have not been considered. The fallacy may arise simply by accidental omission—possibly through a form of wishful thinking—rather than by intentional deception.
When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. Examples of this would be: “You either like it or you don't.”
“He either is guilty or not guilty.” “You are either with us, or against us.” (Walker, 1997)
The “Appeal to Ignorance” Fallacy states that whatever has not been proved false must be true and vice versa. It is asserted that an argument or proposition is true, merely because it has not been proven false. Some examples of this would be: "I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true." "You can't prove God doesn't exist, so God exists." “You can’t prove he stole that, so he didn’t steal it.” "X is true because there is no proof that X is false." The best way to sum up the appeal to ignorance fallacy is by remembering that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (Sagan, 1996)
The “Ad Misericordiam” Fallacy is an extremely effective argument or appeal to pity. In this fallacy, words like ‘compassion’, ‘plight’, ‘tragedy’ or ‘disaster’ and other heart wrenching terms are used. This is an attempt to reinforce or gain acceptance for an argument by appealing to people's sympathies or pity. The occurrence of pity is susceptible to manipulation;
5

especially cases in which pity is not actually deserved or justified but is manipulatively made to seem so. (Kimball, 2004) This fallacy is the indispensible tool of defense lawyers and it is often used to move the attention away from the negative actions of a client, and instead focus on the troubles of the client. The term for the everyday use of this fallacy, at school, work, and home, is basically "manipulation." This use of compassion is not only misplaced - no mention is made of how the victim's life may have been ruined - it is irrelevant. (Autonomist, 2004) The problem with Ad Misericordiam arguments is that it exploits feelings, and only focuses attention on short-term consequences for the one receiving the pity. An example of this is: “If my client is sent to prison he will be missed by his family. You surely cannot find it in your hearts to reach any other verdict than not guilty.” “We must give the engineering position to Henry Jones.
After all, he has six children to feed and clothe.” (Walton, 1997)
An additional fallacy is the “Questionable Cause” Fallacy. This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one thing causes another simply because they are regularly associated.
Another way of explaining this is that the fallacy is committed when it is concluded that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are commonly connected. Further, the causal conclusion is drawn without considering the possibility that a third factor might be the cause of both A and B.
A statement that analysts must often keep in mind is that ‘correlation does not imply causation’. An illustration of this would be in the statement that since the 1950s, both the atmospheric CO2 level and crime levels have increased sharply. Therefore, atmospheric CO2 causes crime. In reality, the two events have no simple relationship to each other beside the fact that they are occurring at the same time. (Wikipedia contributors, 2008)
6

To conclude, a fallacy is an argument that seems to be valid, but is not so. (Hansen,
2002) Arguments can be flawed due to biases and faulty reasoning in a strategic intelligence environment. (Ratcliffe, 2004) Therefore, the analyst bears the considerable responsibility of constructing an image of the criminal environment and conveying that picture accurately.
(Ratcliffe, 2004) When developing hypotheses, analysts should tap into the expertise of others by reviewing studies that scholars have conducted on the problems they are examining and by soliciting help of others in their agency. (Boba, 2005)
By examining more than one hypothesis for each particular predicament, the analyst is assuring that they are reasonably and rationally analyzing the data. In the end, they must remember one more ‘critical thinking tool’ known as Occam’s Razor. This rule-of-thumb states that if two competing theories explain a single phenomenon equally well, the analyst should always pick the less complex one. The main thing is to remember it’s not whether we like the conclusion that emerges from our line of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premise and whether that premise is true. (Sagan, 1996)
7

Autonomist, T. (2004). Logical Fallacies, Formal and Informal. Retrieved March 2008, from The
Autonomist: http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/permanent/fallacies.php
Boba, R. (2005). Crime Analysis and Crime Mapping. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Golman, D. (1994, November 29). Study Finds Jurors Often Hear Evidence With Closed Minds. New York
Times.
Hansen, H. W. (2002). The Straw Thing of Fallacy Theory: The Standard Definition of ‘Fallacy’.
Argumentation, 133-155.
Kimball, R. H. (2004). A Plea for Pity. Philosophy and Rhetoric , 301-316.
Ratcliffe, J. (2004). Strategic Thinking in Criminal Intelligence. Annandale, NSW: The Federation Press.
Sagan, C. (1996). Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. New York: Random House
Publishing Group.
Walker, J. (1997). List of common fallacies. Retrieved March 2008, from No Beliefs: http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm
Walton, D. (1997). Appeal to Pity: Argumentum Ad Misericordiam. Albany: Albany State University of
New York Press.
Wikipedia contributors. (2008, April). Ad hominem. Retrieved March 2008, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
8