In my opinion, I believe that it is not appropriate to represent forensic science practice in the media. After all, it is all fiction. According to Kim and Barak after their jury survey that have found out that “jurors were more likely to find a defendant guilty than not guilty even without scientific evidence, if the victim or other witnesses testified, except in the case of rape. If the prosecutor relied on circumstantial evidence, the prospective jurors said they would demand some kind of scientific evidence, before they would return guilty verdict” (Shelton, 2008). Jurors depend quite often on scientific evidence which is not always present, hence 40% of science on CSI does not exist in real life. This is evident in the episode when the
Since the airing of the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and the other televised series that followed have led jurors to compare fiction with reality. The shows have changed the view on the real world of forensic science as the series have a world of forensic science of their own. For this paper the televised series titled Bones by forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs will be used as an example for comparison. In the series Bones Dr. Temperance Brenan arrives at the scene of the crime to examine the skeletal remains found in the scene of the crime equipped with one or more forensic kits. Upon momentarily examining the skeletal remains Dr. Brenan is able to determine the gender, ethnicity, and age. When this type of scenario is compared to nonfictional
I began this year considering a career in forensics. After delving into the field in detail however, I see that it is a very delicate science and easily open to misinterpretation. There are many variables within forensics, the first and foremost being that of the CSI effect and how it influences our expectations of the capabilities of forensic science. While it's true that great advances have been made in the area of forensic science, it's unrealistic to expect a crime scene to be processed, evidence analyzed and a conclusive forensics report to be completed in a short time and be completely accurate 100% of the time. Forensic science has a lot of room for improvement, and understanding if, how, and why shows like CSI affect the field is of high priority. After all, this is real life and not a TV show.
Crime scene investigators, also known as CSIs, have played an essential role in protecting citizens, by proving who is guilty, and who is innocent. CSIs use a large amount of Science and Math skills to solve crimes, resulting in a decent income. They are specialized in forensic science in order to examine crime scenes and recover important evidence (Career Cruising).
In Richards Willing’s “CSI effect” the author tells the reader how, as a result of crime scene shows’ popularity, the misconceptions they create, and the combining of real life events with TV fantasy, crime scene shows have affected jurors and the oucomes of court cases. The shows’ popularity has increased peoples’ interest in forensic science and has caused workers and students to transfer into the field. The second effect crime scenes created is the misconception concerning when to use forensic tests, as well as misconceptions about the speed and accuracy of forensic workers and machines in tracking and identifying the culprit. Willing tells of a murder trial in Arizona in which the defendant’s bloody coat was listed as evidence, but was not tested. Although the defendant had already told investigators that he was at the scene of the crime, with the jacket, jurors asked for forensic DNA evidence linking the defendant to the bloody coat and to the crime scene. The juror’s exposure to crime scene shows had given them knowledge of forensic tests, but not knowledge of the proper use of the tests. Crime scene shows mix real life with TV fantasy. According to willing’s studies, highly attractive forensic workers and stunning suspects, along with very neat crime scenes on crime scene shows deemphasize the real life violence and brutality of crime. Similarly, tv reality shows have influenced people’s ideas about real life and real relationships through the effects of image, misleading information, and popularity.
Forensic anthropology is the study of bones in relation to a criminal investigation. Some have probably seen it used on television, but this is not an accurate portrayal of what this truly is. Many times, this area of forensic science is hidden from the public eye; people only get to see all of the glamorous parts. What they do not see is all of the hard work and effort that is put in to get the job correctly done. This career is a rare decision for someone to choose, because of the lack of opportunity for employment positions as well as the low income per year; however, it is an extremely fascinating occupation. Forensic anthropology has been known to help many organizations, including museums, and law enforcement agencies.
Therefore, the criminal justice system relies on other nonscientific means that are not accepted or clear. Many of forensic methods have implemented in research when looking for evidence, but the methods that are not scientific and have little or anything to do with science. The result of false evidence by other means leads to false testimony by a forensic analyst. Another issue with forensic errors is that it is a challenge to find a defense expert (Giannelli, 2011). Defense experts are required to help the defense attorneys defend and breakdown all of the doubts in the prosecutors scientific findings in criminal cases. Scientific information is integral in a criminal prosecution, and a defense attorney needs to have an expert to assist he/she in discrediting the prosecution (Giannelli,
Overall, though, I believe that Stein is the closest scholar here-mentioned to have accounted for the explanation behind these controversies. The main mistake made by many modern scholars lies in the planning and the research – too much effort is spent on seeking to explain this opposition between the Proculians and the Sabinians in terms of two internally coherent law schools which differ entirely and have held controversies stemming from a specific occurrence. I have personally, as a student of the Roman law, found it difficult in reading the sources and differing theories from scholars to do just this – because, as Scarano Ussani stated, nowhere, in the mass of research that has been done, have any definitive results been reached. As afore-mentioned, I ruled out the political explanation for the purpose of answering this question, and the social explanation does not add a great deal to the debate for me. The theories supporting the social standpoint as addressed in this essay are among the worst for choosing to ignore many of the hard facts in order to make their theory fit better. This leaves only the philosophical and methodological explanations. The philosophical explanation is a reasonably sound one, although as explored above, I do believe that its significance has been largely exaggerated. There is no doubt over the fact that philosophy has played an influential role - even if you only look at Gaius’ ius gentium which contains a certain level of Stoic influence, but as mentioned above there are major differences which have been overlooked slightly in those arguments. The methodological explanation is another seemingly logical one, and the most reliable of all theorems explored in this essay, in my opinion, as it i...
The criminal justice system has changed a lot since the good old days of the Wild West when pretty much anything was legal. Criminals were dealt with in any fashion the law enforcement saw fit. The science of catching criminals has evolved since these days. We are better at catching criminals than ever and we owe this advancement to forensic science. The development of forensic science has given us the important techniques of fingerprinting and DNA analysis. We can use these techniques to catch criminals, prove people's innocence, and keep track of inmates after they have been paroled. There are many different ways of solving crimes using forensic evidence. One of these ways is using blood spatter analysis; this is where the distribution and pattern of bloodstains is studied to find the nature of the event that caused the blood spatter. Many things go into the determination of the cause including: the effects of various types of physical forces on blood, the interaction between blood and the surfaces on which it falls, the location of the person shedding the blood, the location and actions of the assailant, and the movement of them both during the incident. Another common type of forensic evidence is trace evidence. This is commonly recovered from any number of items at a crime scene. These items can include carpet fibers, clothing fibers, or hair found in or around the crime scene. Hairs recovered from crime scenes can be used as an important source of DNA. Examination of material recovered from a victim's or suspect's clothing can allow association to be made between the victim and other people, places, or things involved in the investigation. DNA analysis is the most important part of forensic science. DNA evidence can come in many forms at the crime scene. Some of these forms include hair; bodily fluids recovered at the crime scene or on the victim's body, skin under the victim's fingernails, blood, and many others. This DNA can be the basis of someone's guilt or innocence; it has decided many cases in the twentieth century. As the times continue to change and the criminals get smarter we will always need to find new ways to catch them. Forensic science is the most advanced method yet, but is only the beginning. As the field of science grows so will the abilities of the
Whereas the real picture of forensic evidence is unlike what is represented in movies and television shows where a fingerprint or a trace of hair is found, then it’s game over for the criminal. Reality is not as straightforward. As more people are exposed to the unreal forensic world through television and media the likeliness for a wrong conviction increases with juries assuming the evidence involves more science than what it really does, this is known as the CSI Effect. Further education and training is needed for the people of the court, the forensic specialists, and so called experts. The people in courts do not question any of the ‘professionals’ and just trust in their expertise. The court could overcome this perception by requiring explanation of error rates in a forensic field. To do this, testing examiner error rates will be necessary which means further research. Forensic science has such a large effect on the prosecution of suspects, experts have been known to provide questionable and at times incorrect evidence. When a false conviction occurs the true perpetrator is set free. Once realized, the public doubts the justice system and the reliability of the forensic evidence even more. At this point in time, forensic is an inexact
With producing reality shows comes producing inaccuracies in portrayals in order to reach as many viewers and gain as high ratings as possible every week with each new episode. Every day life is boring, yet people tend to be attracted to the relatable shows that portray real life in eccentric ways – ways that they believe could be imitated by the average person. In many cases, these shows could remain harmless, as it is entertainment. No matter how crude or erroneous, it is just television. However, what happens when these sources of amusement actually start being damaging? Research has shown that crime shows like the ever popular CSI: Crime Scene Investigation have started becoming significantly detrimental to criminal cases, influencing a juror's perception of what should realistically be going on with acquittal rates and wrongful convictions, but researchers have also started to find a rising fault in the prosecution, using this false perception to their advantage.
In recent years, however, such programs as CSI that follows detectives at the Las Vegas Police Department Crime Scene Investigations Bureau as they solve puzzles and catch criminals. Perhaps one of the most well known shows with a forensic psychology theme, CSI has a large impact on viewers perceptions of forensic psychology. On one hand, the increased popularity of forensic psychology because of the show is good and more people are taking an interest in forensic psychology as a career. On the other hand, the forensic psychology that viewers see every week on television may not be exactly the same as forensic psychology in reality. Particularly programs such as CSI also overstate the ability of “hard” evidence (also known as forensic evidence), such as fingerprints and DNA, to provide evidence of definite innocence or guilt (Trask, 2007). They often disregard other components of the investigative process, such as police questioning, despite these being equally valid to establishing guilt (Nolan, 2006). This over-reliance on forensic evidence, due to the importance of forensic science being dramatized by television crime dramas, is also known as the CSI
Forensic scientists work in labs where they examine, identify, and interpret evidence collected in crime scenes. Crime scene investigators collect evidence and pass it to a forensic scientist who uses the items in numerous ways to help catch criminals. Forensic scientists must also record the evidence and any tests ran on it in detail to prove the truth in court. A forensic scientist also has to be able to present his or her physical evidence verbally in court, so a strong communication background is important.
Forensic Science, recognized as Forensics, is the solicitation of science to law to understand evidences for crime investigation. Forensic scientists are investigators that collect evidences at the crime scene and analyse it uses technology to reveal scientific evidence in a range of fields. Physical evidence are included things that can be seen, whether with the naked eye or through the use of magnification or other analytical tools. Some of this evidence is categorized as impression evidence2.In this report I’ll determine the areas of forensic science that are relevant to particular investigation and setting out in what method the forensic science procedures I have recognized that would be useful for the particular crime scene.
The topic I find such fascinating is Forensic Science and how forensic science has significantly changed over the years. “The area of forensic science has grown considerably over the last 150 years and more so since the mid 1980’s.” (Lyman, 2016) Forensic science has gone from taking basic information, and fingerprints to DNA and blood splatter. During a crime scene investigation evidence is collected, analyzed in a crime laboratory and then if needed are presented to the court. However, today the crime laboratory is becoming mobile and can go to the scene to analyze the evidence. Each crime scene and investigation is unique and distinctive, with the help of forensics it can help solve a case.
“The word ‘forensics’ means “connected with the courtroom”; so forensic science is, therefore, concerned with gathering hard evidence that can be presented in a trial” (Innes 9). Forensic science is a science that is applied specifically to legal matters, whether criminal or civil. “Few areas in the realm of science are as widespread and important as forensic science” (Hunter 12). Forensics is the one science that is most commonly used in everyday life. It is also a branch of science that incorporates other branches of science such as biology, chemistry, and etc. Since it is used almost every day “No one can dispute the importance of the contributions to society made by forensic science; the ability to solve crime is undeniably important” (Hunter 13). Forensic science has given criminal investigation a new edge. “Advances in science have opened the door for more effective evidence discovery, howev...