Slashdot Mirror
Is The 'CSI Phenomenon' Good For Science?
Tycoon Guy writes "With CSI: Crime Scene Investigation airing its 100th episode this week, I wonder, how do Slashdot readers feel about the show, and its two spinoffs? On the one hand, they've caused a boom in the popularity of forensic science college courses, and they glamorize geeks bent over microscopes, rather than smarmy lawyers. On the other hand, they may also promote an inaccurate view of science: prosecutors throughout the country now worry about juries that refuse to accept eyewitness accounts or even outright confessions, and instead exclusively demand the kind of forensic evidence they see on CSI. But of course, in the real world, you don't get a test like that in mere seconds - or without spending a substantial amount of money. So where does CSI rate on the geek scale for you?"
I have not watched much of the show, but I don't much care for shows that wrap everything up in a neat little box and make people think that all crimes are solved in an hour, give or take commercials. There is some cool technology, however.
I hate sigs.
It's just a TV SHOW!
I enjoy the show, although they all seem to follow the same recipe, that is everyone denies everything untill they have a minute info, then they give in a little, then spill the beans at the end of the show.
As for forensic in a jury, What a juror must understand is more about it, and truths from the popular show. Jurors are human too, so they will relate, or be swayed by personal oppinions, like strong family bonds, or a strong bond to their children.
It's in between Blind Date and Joe Millionaire.
I say we just grow up, be adults and die.
I think the show is good for science, but as you stated can be bad for the judiciary system. Is it ever a bad thing to have the populice become enamored with knowledge?
Your concerns about the judiciary system are warrented though but I wonder if that will ever be too big of an issue that we have to deal with.
Its good to have the public have some knowledge of forensics. The OJ jury didn't believe overwelming forensics and set him free. Juries should also be smart enough to know hen to believe eyewitness accounts. oops, hoping for to much, why should I expect juries to be smart
"brxref
Sure, there is a lot of junk science, but I think anything that stimulates interest in the justice system, and that helps to reduce the stigma surrounding jury duty, should help to grow the pool of willing potential jurors. Otherwise, the only people you get on juries are the ones too stupid to figure out a good excuse to get out of jury duty.
For years, jury duty has been seen as a nuisance to get out of however possible. Now, there is a real trend toward seeing jury duty as your civic responsibility, and taking it seriously, and even getting excited about it. I think overall this is good for the criminal justice system.
1) anything that promotes interest in science (no matter how glamourized and unrealistic) is a boon.
2) Jury instruction should be enough of a factor. Also, your reliance on the veracity of eye witness testimony is amusing, considering how unreliable IT is.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Ever since I saw an episode where a guy looks at a dead body on the street looks up and says "This guy didn't jump, jumpers take off their glasses." I cannot take this show seriously in anyway shape or form, I see it as true to life as Mission:Impossible is to real FBI/CIA agents.
Jesus I'm stupid.
A population that loves Sci-Fi that includes a solution for everything byr eversing polarities.
My buddy is a prop guy on CSI. For the most part the stuff they use is real, and he is trained on it... and then David Caruso is told how to use it by him.
We can't start worrying about a little creative license when trying to tell a story... the point is made that smart can be exciting, even sexy without having to worry about following the instruction manual to the T.
Kids will be inspired to learn about these things, investigate, solve puzzles either way.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Forensic evidence is one of the most powerful tools available to law enforcement because it is relatively irrefutable.
While things may not work like they do in "CSI" in real life, the sway towards the forensic can only help ensure that the proper people get sent to jail.
The popularity may also help increase funding for CSI departments nationwide. Most CSI departments are woefully underfunded and undermanned.
Besides, just imagine if they had been able to get O.J.'s DNA or fingerprints off of the inside of those gloves...
RomSteady - I came, I saw, I tested. GamerTag: RomSteady / http://www.romsteady.net
As for prosecutors worrying about CSI making juries expect TV-like evidence, the judge sets the jury's expectations. In general, juries in the United States are seriously flawed due to the exemptions provided to most educated professionals. The bigger picture issues are more important than whether jurors are expecting to see CSI-style evidence.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
This is why I tend to get pissed at CSI:Miami. CSI:NY hasn't got enough track record yet for me to decide. CSI (original) is much more in touch with reality as far as technology goes. A few occasional trek-ish moments but nothing like CSI:Miami.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
I prefer the "real" forensic science shows on Discovery, TLC, and A&E. They tend to focus more on the hard work and real science involved in the forensic process than in the neat-hour-long drama. These shows usually have interviews with the actual detectives and scientists who work cases which I find interesting. CSI is boring; heavy on the drama, light on the science.
It would be a little more legitimate if the cameras were using an optical zoom instead of a digital one...but once you're reviewing tapes and just going on the little bit of information on the record, I agree, it's pretty silly. ...But how else are they going to read the license plate, right? :p
On the bright side, it might make the less intelligent criminals (read: majority) overestimate the magical abilities of such things.
Ahhh, but you have quickly forogtten Marg Helgenberger!
She's Helgenbooty-licious!
Wheeeee
I am actually more interested in how many criminals are getting way better at hiding their tracks, like the woman in the article.
Like most Slashdotters, I read a lot of fiction and watch a lot of movies. There is so much out there about how to do a crime, do it right, and do it without a trace, that I really wish law-enforcement agencies the best of luck--because they desperately need the best of luck.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
Lawyers help you navigate complex deals, interract with the diverse laws of states and nations, and can keep your rights from being overrun by the RIAA.
Nicely worded, counselor. That neatly sidesteps the fact that lawyers were the ones who got the laws made so complex that noone but a lawyer can understand it. Convenient. I suppose it all depends on what your definition of 'is' is, or something similar.
You can wavelet and fractalate and vigourously wave your hands in the air until the lift you generate pulls you alongside a cruising 747, but you can not get more information than exists out of an image.
Most zooming algorithms suck, compared to the true content of the image, which is why we can do much better with our eyes. We know that is a "car", so we don't interpolate, say, a tire with jaggy lines, we know it is round.
But ultimately, take a fuzzy, off-true "3" and "5" and zoom out/blur enough, and there is no difference between the two, thus, no way to "backtrack" to the original image. There is a fundamental limit, and CSI routinely passes it.
You can play with contrast and brightness and sometimes retrieve a number or something. But your human eyes are already as good as you can expect at extracting a "3" from an image with suitable brightness and contrast. If you can't already see it, no magic algorithm is going to help. (I'm confident in this case our brains are close enough to optimal on this problem that no significant improvement can be made, even in theory, on still images.)
Personally, I'd rather have juries believe in the forensic sciences, even if they are exaggerated in their portrayal on television... This is a much better state of affairs than having juries exhibiting characteristics of the OJ syndrome where they totally discount science and instead believe "if it doesn't fit they must aquit."
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(
Seriously, it and its ilk don't popularise so much as harm science.
That's because critical thinking is at the core of all good science, and these programs preach the opposite of critical thinking. They're all about using technology as a magic cureall, a social tool, to completely supplant critical thought.
That's bad science. And that's exactly what a generation is being reared on.
It's dogmatic thought - exactly the same tool the Bush Administration is using to destroy whatever science doesn't suit its agenda. Bad! Bad! Bad!
CSI is at least, if not worse than JAG. Naval attorneys don't go flying combat missions and more than forensic examiners go around busting into perps hideouts yelling "Where's the baby!". The only place that happens in in Patricia Cornwell books (you know, the ones with the super-genius cornoner who is also a world-class SCUBA diver, a crack shot, desired by all men and hated by all women because she's beautiful).
Unless the surface is shiny metal, plastic, or glass, they are not going to recover fingerprints from it. Cops don't magically pull fingerprints off wood or paper, and in the case of a bad cheque, they wouldn't even bother if they could.
Is there any reason to expect that the number of job opportunities in this area are going to increase in the coming years?
I imagine this would depend on whether the crime rate is rising or falling. Good luck getting a consistent answer to that. Every study will measure it differently, and the results will be used/reported depending on the answers wanted by whomever is quoting them.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
.. but they overglamourize the job. The CSI people don't do the detective work... they do the crime scene work.
Just like sports are over glamorized and look how many kids are dying to get in the NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL.
I would much rather kids go for the science thinking it is cool and then finding out it really is cool!
No kidding.. and the databases these people use. Where in the hell do you run a real-time query on every window made for every skyscraper in your city? Gimme a break!
Aha! A graham cracker crumb.. from the database we have lot 434, production run 53, baked in 1957 at the Albonian Graham Cracker Foundry, Ansicily, Albonia.. now..lets check this database to see who could have ordered it.
Many anthropology programs are already dealing with a glut of students envisioning themselves doing the kind of work they watch on CSI, but it hasn't been that much of a problem since it only takes one class for them to be disabused of the notion. Although I and other anthropology students have found those people to be something of a nuisance, it isn't really a serious issue since anyone who sticks with that major won't be under any illusion that their job will mirror what they've seen on television.
(for the record I'm a cultural graduate and find physical/forensics to be incredibly dull)
... it is just a TV show. It is an idealized version of reality. It is not meant to be a literal translation of forensic science. Not all forensic scientists are great looking, not all cases are solved... much less in a couple of days.
If you judge these kind of shows with extreme severity you can also rule out ER, Law and Order and almost anything else. CSI IS NOT A DOCUMENTARY!
These facts don't take away from the fact that it is a great show, with great writers and great actors. They manage to make it fresh everytime and the caracters are very well developed and motivate great empatic responses in the audience.
McGuyver wasn't science fact or reality based either, but we ate it up every week.
Cheers,
Adolfo
And TV shows about doctors convince kids to stay in school.
And TV shows about violence convince kids to stay out of trouble.
And COPS inspires the right people to join law enforcement.
And sex on TV is good for healthy population growth.
And American Media made me the genuine, sincere person I am today.
Wouldn't you say it's plausible in many situations that the image they're looking at is originally scanned at a much higher resolution, but when they "zoom in" they're actually zooming in more into its original size?
:-)
I mean, practically all image viewers open images that are too big for the screen in a resized mode.
Surely some of their "extrapolations" aren't realistic but I think a good amount of them can be reasonably explained.
Regardless, it's a very fun show.
- shazow