The Crazy Rants of Samantha BurnsForensic TV Formulations Aid Felonious Finks
I've been wondering when this was going to begin.
It seems that forensic tv programmes are aiding criminals in real life. Shows like CSI help criminals avoid being identified by police and leads juries to "expect too much certainty from scientific witnesses".
I saw this coming a mile away, well, not the jury part of it, but I knew that criminals would learn new tricks from these crazy shows.
Burglars were wearing gloves during break-ins and rapists were using condoms to avoid leaving DNA evidence.Car thieves had even taken to leaving cigarette butts from bins in stolen cars to muddy the forensic trail.
"Suddenly the police have 20 potential people in the car," Rutty said.
I happen to really enjoy one of these shows, Law & Order: Criminal Intent, and it does give criminals some ideas to work with, but the show is too cheesy to believe it's real, right? I mean, there is only one good reason to watch the show anyhow. That's right, it's Private Gomer Pyle/Leonard Lawrence from "Full Metal Jacket".
I hope people realise that crimes aren't solved within an hour, anyhow, and that the detectives aren't always correct in their investigations. There is a difference between tv land and reality. If you do think it's real, you have no right to be a juror in the first place, moron.
Comments
I find it pretty funny that stupid US jurors have taken to disregarding eyewitness accounts in some cases and letting criminals go free because there isn't enough CSI-style scientific evidence. Its such a problem it even has its own name- the CSI Effect. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-08-05-csi-effect_x.htm Idiots.
Posted by: Kat | September 16, 2005 04:10 AM
I guess I'll never be chosen for a jury. lol I love all of the CSI's. However, I do know the difference between reality and what is created for a TV show. I can't believe that some people take those shows so literally.
Posted by: Cara | September 16, 2005 11:17 AM
I once took a forensic science course and one of the policemen who lectured said that rapists who wear condoms are still caught because rapists very often will bite their victims leaving saliva (DNA) and a bite impression.
Posted by: the Meatriarchy | September 16, 2005 11:45 AM
This reminds me of some of the news programs that show a country's vulnerabilities to terrorists who may be watching.
*Idiotic News Reporter*: 'You mean all someone has to do to poison our city's water is to get into this area here... and drop some poison into the water?'
*Bonehead Local Authority*: 'Why yes, this area is hardly ever secured, particularly between the hours of...'
...blah blah blah...
*Dopey News Anchor*: 'Gee, thanks billybob for that informative report!'
Meanwhile I'm slapping myself in the head and wondering when my tap water is going to turn me green...
Nice post...
Posted by: Peakah | September 16, 2005 02:34 PM
Not to mention that CSI and the likes of those shows are 90% BS. Whatever happened to the good 'ol cop shows where they beat-cop cracks skulls, and enforces the law by use of the boot-up-ass method? They're few and far between nowadays. All we have to watch now are technology-driven crime shows that somewhat simulate real-world scenarios and, as mentioned by Sam, are always solved in an hour's time. Tv used to imitate life, but now we imitate tv's beloved characters as if they're real. That's why I only watch ONE cop show: FX's "The Shield". That show goes back to tv's cop show's roots; ass-kickin' cops who get the job done whatever the cost, whatever the body count, and all the while fighting off the urges to get involved in the "easy money" game themselves. That's how it should be. And there's alot more drama in it as well.
Posted by: Paul | September 16, 2005 04:53 PM
(Why oh why must your text be small and grey?)
In the context of some high-profile shooting circa 1994, I remember hearing some expert say that bullet-matching does not really give as much certainty as myth would have it. I mused at the time, would this revelation affect tv cops?
Posted by: Anton Sherwood | October 22, 2005 11:04 PM