![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
What do you mean TV isn't real life?
The media has once again discovered that real life isn't the same as TV, as USA Today breathlessly reports that CSI isn't an accurate representation of police forensics.
The article was inspired by the report from the National Academy of Sciences to Congress on the state of forensics and use of evidence in this country. The press release from NAS and audio of their briefing can be found here or you can listen to the story on NPR. Much of what is in the report reflects concerns that have been raised before, but this is a sweeping indictment of the overall system.
The article was inspired by the report from the National Academy of Sciences to Congress on the state of forensics and use of evidence in this country. The press release from NAS and audio of their briefing can be found here or you can listen to the story on NPR. Much of what is in the report reflects concerns that have been raised before, but this is a sweeping indictment of the overall system.
no subject
Hell, the [magic-based] forensics I use in the P.S.I books are closer to reality than what they show on CSI!
Labs are only as good as the tech, the training, and the materials they have to work with. Since that's all predicated on overworked, underfunded people...
Bah. Sheeple is stupid.
no subject
And that doesn't even take into account the problems with arrogance, sloppiness, and even outright falsification of results in order to make the evidence fit a pre-determined suspect.
There are people and labs out there doing good work, but without common enforceable standards, every time an issue crops up, like say Los Angeles having to review 1000 cases after they realized techs had been improperly analyzing fingerprint evidence, it calls into question the credibility of the whole system.
no subject
We had a really vile forensic pathologist (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/crime/smith-charles.html) here in Toronto who falsified (or, as he himself claimed, screwed up) forensic evidence in at least 20 cases of child death, 13 of them resulting in convictions. At one time this guy was held up as one of Canada's top experts in forensic child pathology ...
no subject
Of course it's nothing new. My history of early modern forensics has stories dating back to nineteenth century of similar so-called expert witnesses, who either exaggerated their credentials, the science behind their testimony or both.
no subject
no subject
*shakes fist* damn them!
no subject
Though much of what they show is theoretically possible (although it would take longer for results and involve many more steps), but there's a big difference between what's theoretically possible with access to the best equipment and most highly trained staff, and what's going to happen in a real world situation where they can't invest tens of thousands of dollars of resources on every case.
no subject
no subject
no subject
And, of course, everyone involved is always improbably good-looking ;^).
no subject
We just had a criminalist (latent print supervisor) fired for stealing drugs from evidence. Now they're having to review the cases he worked on during the time they know he was stealing -- and doing -- drugs. (And he tossed a 20+ year career down the drain for his drug habit. He taught the crime scene management fingerprint class at the community college as well, so really, two jobs down the drain, and probably prison time.)
I agree that a good share of the problem is overworked, underfunded people, as well as underfunded training and underfunded labs. It's also the variety of people doing the collecting (police officers, sworn officers who are forensic techs, non-sworn forensic techs, medical examiners) and how much training they've had. I must have a masochistic streak, because I'm looking to *become* one of those underpaid forensic techs. :) I find the more I learn, the more time I spend pointing and laughing at CSI and the like.
I'd be interested to know if there's a difference in the "CSI effect" between those who just watch CSI and the dramas and those who watch a lot of documentary-type forensic shows. I don't suppose they'll ever look at that, as there are probably a lot more of the former than the latter, but I wonder if it makes a difference.
no subject
I agree that the more you know about forensics, whether it's formal study or simply a layman's interest in documentaries or books, the less subject you are to the CSI effect. And I think that extends to science in general--someone who understands the scientific process, or even someone who understands statistics, is going to be far more skeptical of evidence claims than someone who is willing to believe that every tech out there is Gil Grissom.
no subject
I've caught howlers in other shows, too.
In a recent episode of Psych, a key piece of evidence is tied to bruising on Gus' chest gotten when they were investigating a fire station because during a CPR class, "they have to practice on a real, live 'victim' to get certified."
Later, a Mr. Body has bruises on his chest, and Sean and Gus realize someone has tried to revive him with CPR.
Um.
Not only are you not required to practice CPR on a real person to get certified in CPR, you're not *allowed* to. Because the afore-mentioned bruising is a result, not just of bruising, but of other damage. You can kill someone by doing CPR on them when their heart is beating. It's not uncommon to crack ribs during CPR.
Yet, none of us would have questioned that either Sean or Gus knew beforehand that the pattern of bruising on Mr. Body was consistent with CPR.