What do you mean TV isn't real life?

[pbray]

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.

Comments

[guinwhyte.livejournal.com]

Ooh, thank you. I was just starting to read the sources I've pulled for my paper on the CSI effect (for a criminal justice class). Now I can add a few more.

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.

[pbray.livejournal.com]

Always happy to oblige. We need more good techs (alas appreciation is a poor offset for undercompensation, but it's all I can offer.)

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.