As a piece of entertainment, CSI is alright. Its just hard for those who work in the field of forensic science to watch it, because we're too busy screaming at the television to tell them to switch the lights on.
What is interesting to observe in the media is the number of everyday stories where claims are made about forensic science where forensic scientists, lawyers or police are not shy about talking of their successes. What these stories have in common is the phrase 'Advances in forensic science' [or variants thereof]:
Detective Chief Inspector Ridley said: "One of the key areas of our work involves working closely with forensic scientists. Advances in forensic science and technology now provide us with the opportunities to detect serious crimes and limit the activities of the most dangerous offenders in society." story
The police are reluctant to identify the cases (as the suspects would know who they were and would doubtless make themselves scarce) but Geoff believes this is the start of a new trend. "Because of the advances in DNA we are going to see more and more double jeopardy prosecutions in the future - which is good because why should killers sleep soundly in their beds?" story
DC Lynn Adams, who led the investigation, said the case should serve as a warning to those who think they have got away with crimes.
She said: “Bedfordshire Police are using every tool at their disposal to fight burglary and this is another good example of how advances in forensic science can help us.” story
Certainly the police appear to be more than happy to add to the "dream that is CSI" when it works well. When it doesn't work so well, the forensic scientists find themselves largely on their own...
Commander Dave Johnston, head of homicide and serious crime at the Met's Specialist Crime Directorate, said: "We are of course concerned that the new forensic evidence heard in this trial was not available for the first investigation and sympathise with the anguish that this may have caused to those affected.
"Now the trial process has concluded it is important that the answers are found as to how this forensic evidence was missed so that the public and the courts can maintain their confidence in forensic science. story
Pride leads to anger, anger leads to fear, fear leads to ....DNA evidence can be fabricated and planted at crime scenes, scientists warn story . But British experts said it was highly unlikely any criminal would go to such lengths. Dr Gill Tully of the Government-funded Forensic Science Service said: 'You would need a full molecular biology lab, thousands of pounds worth of equipment and a fully competent molecular biology scientist or technician. 'The vast majority of people who may be involved in criminality would not have access to these materials.'
Hmmm.....the minority of well funded and innovative criminals on the other hand...
My point is that we can't blame a TV show for the public perception of forensic science, because all those who have a stake in the criminal justice system (and that's everyone who pays taxes) participate in the media one way or the other, either in making the stories or by reading them. If we are to blame CSI, we must also blame ourselves.
Shows like CSI are a fantasy, not unlike Star Trek. But the ideas expressed in Star Trek have been credited with inspiring inventors from Stealth Technology (the cloaking device) to the mobile phone (the tricorder). Perhaps there are elements in the forensi-tainment shows that could inspire us to live up to the expectations they generate, although we might have to stop screaming at the television to see them.
