• Uncategorized

Induction and deduction reasoning


Inductionand deduction reasoning

Publicsafety is a fundamental obligation of legitimate governments all overthe world. Different agencies and stakeholders are obliged to developgood security policies and measures that are essential in securingthe citizenry as well as upholding the rule of law in the punishmentof crime. In the U.S, the Department of Homeland Security uses theinductive and deductive approaches to investigate and incriminate thecrime suspects in the court of law. This paper focuses on examiningthe differences between induction and deductive reasoning as used bythe Department of Homeland Security.


Inductionreasoning is the observation of a set of features according to ageneralized perception and statistical analysis (Bachman &ampSchutt, 2013). Hypotheses are developed based on thesegeneralizations and the pieces of statistics synthesized.

Accordingto Hess K. et al., (2016), deduction reasoning, on the otherhand, is the observation of particular characteristics derived fromthe convergence of physical and behavioral action available in anevent or several cases of similar happenings like criminalactivities. Crime occurrence like burglary, serial killings,organized crimes, and sexual offenses are examined well using bothinduction and deductive reasoning.

Ininductive reasoning, the use of inference is the key. After severalobservations, a general argument is established that leads to apremise, which forms the working assumption. It is the propositionsthat are the foundation the argumentation reasoning. Whether thedeveloped argument is valid or not, it leads to the formation of thehypothesis and inductive reasoning.

Onthe other hand, the deductive reasoning supposes that the premise isdirectly proportional to the conclusion. Here, security personnelmove from a more general abstract to the specific one. Precisely, thedistinct patterns or behaviors of the suspect are used to suggesttheir characteristics.

Theinduction and deduction arguments also vary in the way theconclusions from particular events are applied in recurrent cases.The inductive generalization is applied like a judicial precedent.Any future observations similar to the original documentation ofcharacteristics will be handled in the same initial way. Contrary tothis, deduction reasoning on thrives on the premise that varies withthe criminal activities over time. It is from the distinct premisethat a conclusion is formulated (Bachman &amp Scutt, 2016).

Moreover,inductive approach is likely to lead to more inaccuracies compared tothe deductive one. This is because the former is based on thegeneralization of observations and conclusions while the latter iscase specific.

Additionally,the induction argument is applicable when there is no completeinformation about the criminal act. All the validations are onlyhaving some probability of truth. Meanwhile, the deductive reasoningoccurs when complete information is available, leading to a validconclusion that are necessarily true based on true evidence. Theevidence provided after an inductive process only provides a goodreason to believe the truth in support of the conclusion, whereindeductive approach, true evidence depicts a curtained conclusion(Hess K. et al., 2016).

Inmy opinion, the Department of Homeland Security should give priorityto the deductive reasoning. This is because it focuses on findingvalid, complete information for a true conclusion. Crime activitiesin this era are so sophisticated that the security agency has toimprove its game in the quest to find evidence. When the criminalsare clamped down with concrete evidence, it is difficult for them togo scot-free, while the rule of law is also preserved at the sametime.


Bachman,R., &amp Schutt, R. K. (2013).&nbspThe practice of research incriminology and criminal justice. Sage.

Hess,K. M., Orthmann, C. H., &amp Cho, H. L. (2016).&nbspCriminalinvestigation. Cengage Learning.