According to the science of forensics, the question can be asked: to what extent does history and human sciences contribute in making accurate predictions? In other words, how much can we trust psychology in predicting the outcome of circumstances such as solving a murder case?
In most murder mystery shows, the audience is able to follow along the investigations and see the process in which they narrow down suspects, which is actually a noticeable routine. First, the detectives see who is involved and check alibis. With the use of critical thinking, they try to determine whether the suspects were capable of committing the murder. This also correlates to the area of history because they have already established this process according to its effectiveness in their profession in the past. Once they hit a snag in their investigations, the use of creative thinking comes in handy, and they try to think of other possible reasons the victims was murdered, which sometimes can be unrelated to the way the victim's body was found or the occupation they worked. This part of the investigation delves more into the human sciences area. Suspects are interviewed and interrogated in order to bring more knowledge about the case. Are they experiencing any emotional distress? Are there any “tells” to their reactions? Do they have any reason to kill the victim?
So, we can see how the two types of thinking interact in the process of forensics. Psychology, which is part of human sciences, comes into play when the detectives need to understand the suspects and try to find every possible explanation to the murderer's motive and get the suspect to either confess their crime or help them in their investigation. Sometimes, it's a mind game that tries to get the other player to “show his cards.” The detectives need to know what works and what doesn't in order to effectively get a suspect to talk. In their experience with their job, most of the time, their intimidation and use of “threats” eventually pays off, with the exception of cases with professionals, or contract killers. Psychology is used to predict the suspects' possible next move, which is effective for cases involving tracking down a serial killer.
The use of psychology, or human sciences, to gain knowledge is very limited. Because every person is unique in their actions and reactions, people cannot be expected to react the same way under the same circumstances, but there are a few generalizations that may still be useful. To effectively use human sciences, the detective must be able to distinguish between generalizing and particularizing perspectives.
There is so much more to forensics than psychology. A detective must look into the facts of the suspect's past. It's not just about “reading your opponent”, but instead, it's about making a solid case for the trial and getting all the factual data straight. This refers back to the area of history. The detectives use data such as financial information to also look into their victims lives as well as their suspects. It brings up more knowledge on whether the victim had financial trouble and possibly got themselves involved with the wrong people for example. This part of the investigation is conducted on research. The interpretation of this data shows the interaction between these two areas of knowledge as well. It's not only about interrogating suspects and trying to “get into their heads,” which, again, addresses the area of history whereas effective interrogation goes with human sciences.
Using history can be very limited as well. The process in which these detectives conduct their investigation can be very different in other countries. Most of the television shows conduct research with real-life detectives, but these are mainly American law enforcement facilities and are therefore tied to the United States justice system. Other countries have different judicial systems, which suggests that the way they conduct their investigations may be different. Though there may be similarities, the history of this of forensics can vary among different countries, especially since they have establish different systems of government.
All in all, these two areas of knowledge, human sciences and history, both are still essential to an investigation. Predicting the suspect's moves falls alongside the use of creative thinking to find new ways to get a suspect to talk or to find out how they think. Whereas the study of history falls under the use to critical thinking alongside the ability in psychology to distinguish between relevant from irrelevant information, claims, and reasons because that is what detectives analyze for solid facts, not simply on speculation. That way, any predictions would be accurate, and the case is more likely to be solved.
In reference to the knowledge issue, history and human sciences play an essential part in a homicide investigation because that is where explanations about why people do what they do come from and whether it’s actually “normal” for the person to do it. One very good quote from the TV show helps generalize the killer’s mind and allows their motives to make sense. “There are only three reasons to commit a murder: love, money, and to cover up a crime.” However, I would probably include that a serial killer is somewhat with great trauma in their past, and they commit murders because their minds are unstable. Either way, this is still a very simplistic idea that addresses the history of why humans do what they do.
Once the murderer's motive is verified, then the rest of the investigation would be based on evidence and analysis on how the murderer carried out this crime. Most of the knowledge that detectives gain their knowledge during the investigation come from the interaction of creative and critical thinking, which make up their occupation of being a detective, or a murder mystery novelist. Their whole thought process is engaged with these two ways of thinking and the outcome of the investigation relies on their skill to analyze the facts and find different perspectives or motives. The use of such cognitive skills or strategies must be in coexistence to increase the probability of a desirable outcome, like solving a case. Word count: 1,385
Works Cited
Baker, Matt, and Rick Rudd. "Relationships between Critical and Creative Thinking." Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research 51.1 (2001). Print.
Brown, Eric D. "Critical Thinking vs. Creative Thinking." Ericbrown.com. Eric D. Brown, 5 Sept. 2008. Web.
