Eck's three hypotheses for solving crimes: circumstance, effort, and triage

Criminal Justice

Investigators Solve Crimes

Eck explains that one hypothesis of solving crimes by investigators is really out of the investigators' control, and totally random, and this is called "circumstance-results." Another hypothesis suggests a totally different conclusion, the "effort-result" hypothesis, which says the continued investigative work by detectives and patrol officers greatly increases the ability to solve crimes. The "triage" hypothesis blends the other two, and breaks cases into three distinct groups, each group handled in a different investigative manner. These are cases that cannot be solved with basic investigation, cases that are solved by circumstances, and cases that may be solved with a sensible amount of investigation. Eck also believes that there is evidence that supports both the first and second hypothesis that is not conclusive, and the triage hypothesis may be the most effective in investigation crime.

The authors Brandl and Frank support the effort-results conclusion, because they maintain that it is extremely important for the police to build good relationships with the community, and that these relationships create a better feeling among the public when it comes to police patrols and services. Thus, police need to be more results oriented, and take more time in their investigations to gain public support, which in turn will help them solve more crimes along with creating a better global outlook among taxpayers. This also helps the police build partnerships with the people they serve and this will aid them in investigations, as well.