Forensic Science In The Real CSI

Crime is a common public issue for people living in the inner city, but is not limited to only urban or highly populated cities as it can undoubtedly happen in small community and rural areas as well. In The Real CSI, the documentary exemplified many way in which experts used forensic science as evidence in trial cases to argue and to prove whether a person is innocent or guilty. In this paper, I explained the difference in fingerprinting technology depicted between television shows and in reality, how DNA technology change the way forensics evidence is used in the court proceedings, and how forensic evidence can be misused in the United States adversarial legal system. In the popular culture, criminal television show typically perpetuate

At least 99 percent of the time, forensic science is reliable and deem accurate. Although four experts that matched Brandon Mayfield’s fingerprint to the fingerprint on a bag at the crime scene, they in fact misidentified the evidence and Spanish police found out that the latent fingerprint actually belong to be an Algerian. This shown that forensic experts and attorneys can definitely be wrong; furthermore, it convey that not all evidence presented in the case is subjected to be infallible and there is a possibility for committed error. Leah Bartos, a UC Berkley graduate student with a Journalism degree, conducted an experiment to understand the process of becoming a certified forensic consultant. She had no prior knowledge in the forensic discipline, but became certified after she passed the open book exam and sent ACFET her bachelor degree, resume, and references. The ACFET exam have a 99 percent pass rate; therefore, it is criticized for creditability of its certified graduate and branded a diploma milling organization for-profit. Attorney can argue the weakness of the forensic evidence presented, hence forensic science call for bad science and can definitely be misuse in our adversarial legal