examples of how being familiar with and following digital forensic best practices AND criminal justice standards would benefit you, even if you are working in a non-criminal justice digital forensics position. Solution Forensic rhetoric , as coined in Aristotle\'s On Rhetoric , encompasses any discussion of past action including legal discourse—the primary setting for the emergence of rhetoricas a discipline and theory. This contrasts with deliberative rhetoric and epideictic rhetoric, which are reserved for discussions concerning future and present actions respectively. In contemporary times, the word forensic is commonly associated with criminal and civil law referring specifically to forensic science. It is important to note that the term forensic associated with criminal investigation exists because forensic (or judicial) rhetoric first existed. Since forensic rhetoric’s original purpose was to win courtroom cases, legal aids have been trained in it since legal freedoms emerged. Because in early law courts, citizens were expected to represent themselves and training in forensic rhetoric was very beneficial. In ancient Athens, litigants in a private law suit and defendants in a criminal prosecution were expected to handle their own case before the court - a practice that Aristotle approved of. The hearings would consist of questions addressed to the litigant/defendant and were asked by a member of the Court, or the litigants could ask one another; these circumstances did not call for legal or oratorical talent - therefore oratory or legalism was not expected, encouraged, or appreciated. After the time of Solon, the Court of Areopagus was replaced and the litigant/defendant would deliver a prepared speech before the courts to try and sway the jury; they expected dramatic and brilliant oratorical displays. Now, listeners appreciated oratorical and even legalistic niceties, such as appeals to passion, piety, and prejudice. It was at this point in Athens history where the forensic speech-writer made his first appearance. The speech-writer would prepare an address which the litigant/defendant memorized and delivered before the court. Forensic speech-writing and oratory soon became an essential part of general rhetoric. After the nineteenth century, forensic rhetoric “became the exclusive province of lawyers,” as it essentially remains today. These people were experts in the court system and dominated forensic rhetoric, since it is tied to past events—thus the relationship between law and rhetoric was solidified. .

1. examples of how being familiar with and following digital forensic best practices AND criminal
justice standards would benefit you, even if you are working in a non-criminal justice digital
forensics position.
Solution
Forensic rhetoric , as coined in Aristotle's On Rhetoric , encompasses any discussion of past
action including legal discourse—the primary setting for the emergence of rhetoricas a
discipline and theory. This contrasts with deliberative rhetoric and epideictic rhetoric, which are
reserved for discussions concerning future and present actions respectively.
In contemporary times, the word forensic is commonly associated with criminal and civil law
referring specifically to forensic science. It is important to note that the term forensic associated
with criminal investigation exists because forensic (or judicial) rhetoric first existed.
Since forensic rhetoric’s original purpose was to win courtroom cases, legal aids have been
trained in it since legal freedoms emerged. Because in early law courts, citizens were expected to
represent themselves and training in forensic rhetoric was very beneficial. In ancient Athens,
litigants in a private law suit and defendants in a criminal prosecution were expected to handle
their own case before the court - a practice that Aristotle approved of. The hearings would
consist of questions addressed to the litigant/defendant and were asked by a member of the
Court, or the litigants could ask one another; these circumstances did not call for legal or
oratorical talent - therefore oratory or legalism was not expected, encouraged, or appreciated.
After the time of Solon, the Court of Areopagus was replaced and the litigant/defendant would
deliver a prepared speech before the courts to try and sway the jury; they expected dramatic and
brilliant oratorical displays. Now, listeners appreciated oratorical and even legalistic niceties,
such as appeals to passion, piety, and prejudice. It was at this point in Athens history where the
forensic speech-writer made his first appearance. The speech-writer would prepare an address
which the litigant/defendant memorized and delivered before the court. Forensic speech-writing
and oratory soon became an essential part of general rhetoric. After the nineteenth century,
forensic rhetoric “became the exclusive province of lawyers,― as it essentially remains
today. These people were experts in the court system and dominated forensic rhetoric, since it is
tied to past events—thus the relationship between law and rhetoric was solidified.