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?"

Comments

Re:Grade

[Mod Me God Four]

Your sig:

So conservatives want to save fetuses because life is sacred but will kill murderers, thus lowering themselves to the level of the murderer?

Hypocrisy is disgusting. At least have convistion in a belief. Or is it easier to hide behind knee-jerk groupthink than think about an issue?

You disgust me.

Re:Grade

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, troll; I'll bite.

An unborn child has done nothing wrong. The only crime that they pay capital punishment for is existence. The mere fact that they are alive - and an 'invasion' or 'parasite' to their host (who, by the way, in 98.5% of cases is fully complicit in causing the condition in the first place) - is enough justification to kill it.

A murderer who kills 15 people in cold blood, however, has denied each of those people of their right to life. That's why they're called murderers. (Though I must admit the subtle distinctions that differentiate the right to live of a) those who have left the womb and b) those that have not, is lost to me.)

So the prevailing thinking (among those pro-capital-punishment-types who choose to think it through) is that through the murderer's own actions, s/he has willfully disregarded anyone's right to live, and in doing so, has forfeited their own right. Through their own actions. Action, reaction, see? So tell me why the same fate awaits an baby whose only crime is viability? (And don't give me any of that "it's not viable" bullshit - if it weren't viable, there wouldn't be a need for abortions!)

I'm not saying I agree with capital punishment - I don't. But I am saying that there is certainly some logical justification and not just blatant hypocracy that you seem eager to point out. 'Cause when you do, you should be careful that you're not saving mass murderers and murdering innocents. Because that sort of hypocracy would disgust me.

Re:Grade

[Mod Me God Four]

I don't understand you.

You say a murderer should be killed, because they have been found to have killed. So isn't killing committing the act they have been found to have committed and found to be 'wrong'?

Ignore fetuses for now, just concentrate on the 'killing is right/killing is wrong' contradiction.

Re:Grade

[tremor_tj]

Your quick to judge mentality disgusts me. Maybe he is on neither side of that ridiculous spectrum. It's possible he was just making commentary.

Re:Grade

[ceejayoz]

I'm a pro-choice anti-death penalty liberal, but even I have no problems with this concept.

Murder is wrong. Capital punishment is not murder (as murder is unlawful killing) and thus is not necessarily wrong.

OT: Re:Grade

[AstroDrabb]

No, a "conservative" wants to save an innocent baby that has committed no harm against humanity vs. a _convicted_ murderer that has committed the _ultimate_ crime against humanity, taking another human life. You see, if you kill, you lose your rights to life. Plain and simple. If you have no respect for another life, _why_ in the world should society have respect for your life and pay millions to keep you alive for an average of 75 years or so?

I am a Libertarian, so I don't follow all the Demo/Republi crap that is spewed. However, it doesn't take Albert Einstein to figure out that if you do not respect life, why should others respect your life.

I think that sig is very Insightful in the way that it highlights the typical democrats stance of being allowed to kill a human while they are babies, yet detest killing a murderer while they are adults and having _full_ control over their actions. A baby has no defense against a doctor with a vacuum trying to kill it.

What disgust me are people that are enamored with being able to kill babies that have committed no offense against society, yet not want to kill real abominations that have committed murder.

Re:Grade

[AstroDrabb]

OK, you are a big boy, so I am sure you can understand the difference between someone killing because they want to steal from you, rape you, get drugs or any number of reason scum murder; And society saying that you have committed the most horrific offense against society and because of that we do not want you in _our_ society. There are two options. Capital punishment and paying millions in tax payer dollars to keep that scum alive for the rest of their life. Do you want me taking money out of your paycheck to keep a _convicted_ murder alive?

Don't forget that is is very _hard_ to get the death penalty in the USA. You have to commit 1st degree murder to get the death penalty. Any other murder results in our tax dollars keeping that killer alive for the rest of their life. To get convicted of 1st degree murder, a jury actually has to be convinced that you _PLANED_ the murder and _WANTED_ to kill the person/people.

Compare the number of people that are convicted of murder _each_ year in the USA vs. the number of people that get put on death row. The ratio is very low. Most murders get life in prison, while death row is saved for the most horrid murderers.