Deductiveand Inductive Reasoning used in solving Crime
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning used insolving Crime
The reasoning used in seeking solutions mightdepend on either deductive reasoning or the inductive reasoning.Deductive reasoning will often rely on broad generalizations thatwill lead to the hypothesis (Mantere & Ketokivi, 2013).Inductive reasoning begins with the pieces of evidence that will leadto a hypothesis, and the data will undergo empirical analysis toconfirm the credibility of the theory (Evans & Over,2013). The two forms of reasoning rely ondifferent approaches, and inductive reasoning uses more analysis andneeds data to support the hypothesis while deductive is aboutgeneralization.
First, the use of deductive reasoning willreveal that it is a homicide and the murderer(s) had the intention ofkilling the two. Given that they are newlyweds, it is more likelythat the person that killed them was jealous of their marriage.Perhaps, a bitter ex-lover that was not over any of the two personsthat are dead. Hence, there is the need to identify their names andwhere they are originally from. From that point, I will ask around toknow who their friends are and later identify their ex-lovers. Apartfrom that, I will also determine the nature of the break-ups withtheir exes before they decided to move together. However, given thatthe girl was raped, I will focus more on the woman’s ex-lover. Iwill also assess his history with the law and ask around tounderstand his overall behavior. For instance, I will determine ifhis character and personality meet the profile of a murderer (Girod,2014). I might ask around to understand if hewas stalking the lady and if they had a good relationship after theirbreakup. More importantly, I will also find him and ask him about hisalibi on that fateful day. If he does not have an accurate alibi, Iwill have to continue with the investigation to assess another typeof evidence that might tie him to the murder. If he had a perfectalibi, I would think of another theory that will create the perfecthypothesis that will solve the case. In particular, the theory of abitter ex-lover seems more likely because they are newlyweds.
Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, refers to the way that onemight observe particular characteristics and determines a patternthat will help in creating a hypothesis. In crime, that means thatone will observe the pieces of evidence and determine the offenderand the intention behind the activity (Girod, 2014). In thisparticular case, there are pieces of evidence that might beinfluential in solving the case. For instance, some of the key piecesof evidence include the large black man and the three teenage malesthat were seen peeking at the trailer’s window. More likely, theyare the ones that committed the murder, and I will launch a missionto find any of the four people and the residents will help inidentifying them. I will order the police doctor to identify anystrange DNA on the bodies of the two dead people. In fact, thestrange DNA will be compared to any of the four men seen wanderingaround the trailer before the murder was committed (Girod, 2014). Thesize of the blood shoe print might also be compared to that of thefour suspects and understand if one of their shoe sizes matches theshoe print. After finding the four men, I will determine theiridentity and later compare their DNA to the one discovered at themurder scene.
In conclusion, the deductive and the inductive reasoning will rely ontwo different approaches and the analysis of the case also revealsthe same. For instance, the deductive reasoning assumes that themurderer might be a bitter ex-lover, and there is the need todetermine who he is. On the other hand, inductive reasoning will relyon the data that includes any different DNA and matching it to thefour men that were seen around the trailer before the murder. Hence,finding the four men and matching their DNA to the strange ones foundat the murder scene will help in solving the case.
Evans, J. S. B., & Over, D. E. (2013). Reasoning to and frombelief: Deduction and induction are still distinct. Thinking &Reasoning, 19(3-4), 267-283.
Girod, R. J. (2014). Logical Investigative Methods: CriticalThinking and Reasoning for Successful Investigations. CRC Press.
Mantere, S., & Ketokivi, M. (2013). Reasoning in organizationscience. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 70-89.