Write a lab report summarizing your work on the features of convergent plate boundaries.
Review your work on subduction zone features from lab 3, volcanoes from lab 6 and earthquakes
from lab 8. Your report should include:
Title: Plate Tectonics, Volcanoes, and Earthquakes
Introduction: Brief introduction to subduction zones and the work you did in these labs.
Method: What techniques did you use to determine the type of volcano that was featured on the
map? How did you determine the epicenter and magnitude of the earthquake?
Results: What type of volcano is Crater Lake? Include your topographic profile to show your
evidence for your conclusion. On which plate boundary is this volcano located? What type of
magma would have been erupted? What was the magnitude of the earthquake you interpreted
and where was the epicenter? On which plate boundary was this earthquake located?
Discussion: Explain the relationship between the volcano, the earthquake and the processes that
occur at subduction zones. WHY were this magma type and this type of volcano produced at this
location? Why did the earthquake occur at this location. Include a subduction zone diagram to
help explain these processes.
Cross examination alludes to a technique for scrutinizing that is typically utilized by exploring officers, for example, police, criminologists, or military to acquire data from a suspect (Michael, 2007). Cross examination is a procedure that is permitted in law as characterized by the constitution, however not all types of cross examination are legitimate or even moral from an ethical perspective. In United States for example the shape in which cross examination must be attempted keeping in mind the end goal to get an admission from a suspect are administered by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Michael, 2007). The strategies of doing cross examination are not entirely characterized by law but rather rules exist that characterize the points of confinement by which methods of cross examinations must be finished. In reality the sort of cross examinations that exists and the shape it can take are as changed as they are untrustworthy. For the most part cross examination strategies can be portrayed in two ways, those that are lawful and the ones that are completed utilizing illicit techniques (Michael, 2007). Legitimate cross examinations are characterized by every nation law regarding the matter. However illicit cross examinations are not particularly characterized as such, but rather just sorted because of their tendency, profundity and broadness. The shapes in which unlawful cross examination can take are numerous and can't be thoroughly characterized or even accounted. They are the most widely recognized kinds of cross examination that are typically subjected to associates in any case with the nations enactment relating to the subject, including United States which is viewed as the model of protected law. These types of illicit cross examination are by and large alluded as torment (Michael, 2007). This is on the grounds that they quite often include incurring of physical agony or hardship of a fundamental need that straightforwardly add to typical body capacity, for example, lack of sleep, rotating temperatures. However cross examination isn't just constrained to suspects but on the other hand is usually done to witnesses and wrongdoing casualties too. Let us quickly examine the idea of cross examinations most usually utilized both lawful and illicit. Keeping in mind the end goal to learn the level of hugeness of truth that exists for a man composing an admission under these conditions. Lawfully there are four types of cross examinations that are routinely connected by law implementation around the world. One procedure is utilization of suggestive words or proclamations that infer through discussion an idea of guarantee or danger to the individual being questioned (Kassin, Appleby and Perillo, 2010).. A cross examiner consequently proposes to the suspect in no contingent or unverifiable terms the likelihood of the suspect being given tolerant sentence if they somehow managed to participate. Or on the other hand makes known accessibility of separating proof that an observer to the wrongdoing has officially recorded. This strategy is additionally now and again alluded as misleading since more often than not it includes out and out untruths (Kassin et al, 2010). Whichever the approach that a cross examiner will pick it will have an effect to the speculate admitting to the wrongdoing. This is on the grounds that the situation being what it is of cross examination his rights will have been traded off. This strategy isn't in any capacity characterized as unlawful in numerous nations, including United States. Another technique for cross examinations utilized is Suggestibility. It is fabricated no two imperative suppositions, that the suspect will accept and acknowledge the inferred proclamations and two that they will act by admitting (Kassin et al, 2010). This strategy more often than not includes methods', for example, lack of sleep and now and again utilization of medications that repress the capacity of mental capacities to oppose or think sensibly. The systems utilized as a part of this strategy appear to verge on torment and are permitted in a few nations as cross examination technique. Another technique is Goodcop/Badcop (Kassin et al, 2010). A strategy utilized by a specialist that endeavors to estrange the suspect with the specific criminologist. The awful cop undertaking the cross examination deliberately displaying harsh techniques, for example, mauling. Thus, the thought is to make a speculate loathe the cop and in the process have the capacity to develop another association with another agent acquired discontinuously and who ventures compassion, comprehension and reassurance. This is a thought that most specialists accept is a piece of the criminology hypothesis. It expounds on the primary driver of wrongdoing, in spite of the fact that this might not be considered inside and out. At last there is the Reid system, a cross examination process that spotlights on a presume non-verbal communication to dissect the conduct of the suspect with a specific end goal to tell on the off chance that they are lying (Kassin et al, 2010). It is a method that requires an agent to have particular cross examination abilities and abnormal state of information in conduct investigation. It is generally utilized by senior criminologist who have directed various cross examination methods. Non-verbal communication examination is a workmanship that is educated to all FBI officers, that they apply in routine examination undertakings as Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). It is an authoritative document of cross examination permitted by relatively every other nation yet it isn't without it feedback. This feedback relates to the lead of the gatherings engaged with the deed. Another technique that is especially identified with this is one that applies polygraph tests to suspects keeping in mind the end goal to tell on the off chance that they are lying. Polygraph is a logical gadget that breaks down mind structure movement and heart beat levels to find out the honesty of answers to proclamations (Kassin et al, 2010). Alternate types of cross examinations are the ones whose admissions are not acceptable in court and more often than not include torment. Joined Conventions Against Torture characterizes this kind of cross examinations as torment (Michael, 2007). In any case, torment isn't utilized to characterize illicit cross examination alone. It characterizes torment as "..any demonstration by which extreme torment or enduring, regardless of whether physical or mental. Is deliberately exacted on a man for such purposes as getting from him, or a third individual, data or an admission? It goes ahead to characterize torment as acts, for example, disciplines without fundamentally expectation for data or admission (Michael, 2007). It likewise characterizes and incorporates separation and intimidation as torment. This type of cross examination and torment all in all is illicit as indicated by the International Law. The Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions have endorsed torment to be unlawful notwithstanding when coordinated to detainees of war (Michael, 2007). UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights disallows utilization of any type of cross examination which it considers to be Human Right Violations. The structures that unlawful cross examinations can take are numerous and in some cases the systems themselves can't be obviously disclosed to have a place with some class. What is clear however is that cross examinations in whichever shape are a powerful type of getting admissions, and surely one of the techniques that adds to the accomplishment of criminal feelings in courts. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, states"..No individual should be constrained in any criminal body of evidence to be an observer against himself" (Michael, 2007), an unmistakable reference to an admission. What's more, if such confirmation was introduced in an official courtroom then the law is required to see it with suspect and watch caution (Michael, 2007). For sure the administrative instruments that have been set up to prepare for constrained admission are various and are educates of authoritative laws and court decisions. Joined States for example gives that Miranda notices be perused to a suspect at the season of capture (Inbau, 2008). The Miranda articulation serves to make the presume mindful of their directly the situation being what it is. This technique for sure demonstrates that the idea of admissions given by associates through all structures with cross examinations all in all is typically exceptionally far fetched. In any case, since admission is a result of the cross examination strategy, the technique for the cross examination is an immense determinant to the idea of admission that a suspect is probably going to make (Inbau, 2008). For example cross examination through torment can be said to be compelling in one way. Since a suspect will probably disclose profitable data now and again of horrendous physical torment than it is feasible for them under some other situation. In some cases the thought of danger is separated from everyone else can accomplish this. What is imperative to note for this situation is that this strategy is most likely just viable when the objective is data and not an admission. Then again utilizing torment to get an admission can't be said to display a high likelihood of the admission articulation being honest. For the straightforward reason that a man under critical physical agony or strived of imperative physical necessities would nearly do anything that would facilitate the torment at all cost. The need all things considered is to manage the current condition paying little respect to the outcomes related with the admission. Maybe the motivation behind why most law authorization organizations overall resorts to torment cross examination for the most part when what they is require is data (Inbau, 2008). Torment is against human rights. In spite of the fact that in specific cases, torment will be prescribed and restricted to different types of cross examination. Torment should just be utilized when data that is basic to sparing lives is required from a fear mongering suspect. The torment utilized ought to involve individual inclination until the presume surrenders the appropriate data. However the presumable hood of acquiring a honest admission supposedly is high when legitimate cross examinations strategies are utilized which plays on the speculates dread, for example, preclude from claiming flexibility. Furthermore, which likewise utilizes the segments of guarantees, dangers and misleading properly. These are cross examination systems permitted and the admission got is acceptable in an official courtroom. However the investigative specialist should just be in interest for reality since false admissions can't be maintained by an official courtroom. At last the idea of an admission that is gotten whether honest or not through interrog>GET ANSWER