Slashdot Log In
Is The 'CSI Phenomenon' Good For Science?
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Nov 17, 2004 04:42 PM
from the no-it's-good-for-advertisers dept.
from the no-it's-good-for-advertisers dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Grade (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Grade (Score:4, Funny)
I take it you're not a big fan of star trek either eh?
Parent
Re:Grade (Score:5, Insightful)
See, the CSIs aren't perfect. They miss things. In fact, a few weeks ago, one of the characters' home lives is falling apart because of her dedication to her job. I wouldn't exactly call that glamourising the profession.
Parent
Re:Grade (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, wouldn't it have been more interesting/dramatic if they looked at the photo, saw the skyline and one of the cops opens a book with the heights of buildings and does some writing on a scrap of paper and then looks at a wall map. One of the other cops could have said "what are you doing, how can you find her like that?" and the other cop could say "didn't you ever take Trig in high school?". Believable and real. Also, another episode they were able to track a rat that swallowed a bullet with a hand held scanner ala Total Recall....I shit you not...
Now, the original CSI doesn't seem to do as much of this. Granted it has a little, but it's more believable.
Parent
Re:Grade (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Grade (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Grade (Score:5, Informative)
Not to sound like a tinfoil hat wearing american or anything, but I suspect that the shows are reinforcing the fact that the cameras are actually useful.
The vast majority of cameras out there are pure crap, designed with resisting abuse in mind instead of quality. Some places put a lot of money into cameras (Worked at Mervyns for a while, loss had some nice zoom lenses)
Still, if the video is stored, the quality will be dismal - cameras regularly record 10 or 24 hours onto a standard 2 hour vhs (the 6hrs slp ones). Not only that, but they mix the feeds from 8 cameras into a single scene.
You won't realistically get better than a 320x240 image (if you get half that, I would be impressed) per scene off the tape, and that just isn't enough to be useful. Digital? Not much better, disk space is cheap and re-usable though.
Quite simply, they can tell if you're wearing a hat, maybe how long your hair is, etc. Not much else.
Parent
Re:Grade (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Grade (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I love crap like that. Because it's cool to demonstrate to people that such software exists today.
Think about it -- how difficult is that software to write? You just described its functional specifications and wrapped them in a single paragraph, including complaints. Sure, it would need to be customized on a city-by-city basis, but for a city the size of New York it wouldn't be impossible.
As a matter of fact, I thought the whole idea was so cool I just now googled for more info. I found searching for the terms AeroTriangulation found a few software vendors who have products that combine maps and photos. Rockware seems to sell a lot of it. And I remembered that in a previous Slashdot story that there's a company performing a photolocation service! Here's the article. [newscientist.com]
So, isn't it actually even cooler that the technology you reported them using was actually lower tech than the current state of the art in photolocation software? In reality nobody has to click on the Empire State Building, because the software already recognizes it! How cool is that?
Parent
Re:Grade (Score:5, Funny)
Fuck, you hire some guy to keep track of which blood spatters belong to who, and all of a sudden he's taken over the entire Florida legal system. You ever see any trials in this show? For all we know he just takes these fuckers out back and buries them in the motherfucking parking lot. It's not like he couldn't get away with it, he apparently got some kind of extra-legal status where he immediately just takes over command in any situation he wanders into.
Parent
My rating (Score:4, Funny)
Definitive answer (Score:4, Funny)
you know you're a geek when... (Score:5, Interesting)
I love the CSI, although I came to in way late. Nice thing is that Spike TV shows 2 reruns back to back at 7 each night.
Re:you know you're a geek when... (Score:5, Interesting)
They at least talk about doing real things like Western blots and mass spec- once while flipping channels I caught a minute of Navy NCIS where someone mentioned doing an ELISA. In particular, these shows tend to do a nice job of explaining the principles behind a test while they perform it- occasionally I learn new things, though occasionally there will be something explained where I'm thinking, "um, it's not exactly how you say,"- I'm sure the same is true for medical professionals who watch "ER," cops who watch "NYPD Blue," etc. Now, once again, I say that as a chemist- people in other fields may have more of an issue with how their work is represented on such shows- for one, I'm sure that as is usual for television, the capabilities and use of computers are misrepresented. What personally bugs me more than the science itself on CSI and its ilk is the budget that these crime labs seem to have. If anything, these shows might give people the idea that forensics labs have infinite time, money, and resources to ensure justice is done in each and every case.
It'd be nice, though, if once in a while they'd use a couple of minutes at the end of the show to mention real forensics and the shortcuts they took during the episode- and possibly mention that in reality, sometimes the results are inconclusive, even if everyone did their jobs right.
Oh, and second the parent- Diamond Evolution One are some nice gloves- though I prefer the MicroGrip purple nitriles myself.
Parent
television sucks, let's move on (Score:5, Funny)
Re:television sucks, let's move on (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Infinite Resolution (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Infinite Resolution (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed. I'd really like to get a hold of the filter that lets them turn 6 pixels into a licence plate. Do you think it would be available for The GIMP?
Parent
Re:Infinite Resolution (Score:5, Funny)
In the episode The Prom they're watching a tape of a demon attack:
Parent
Re:Genuine Fractals 3.5 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Parent
Re:Genuine Fractals 3.5 (Score:5, Interesting)
It is really amazing just how much information is in the low-res source file, encoded as slight changes in colour values. And the best software does an unbelieveable job of extracting that (making huge guesses along the way). Sure, the guesses do mean it will get it totally wrong occasionally and show things that were never there, but most of the time they're right.
Parent
Fractalate (Score:5, Funny)
Fractalate!
Fractalate!
How did you know this would be my new favorite word? Honestly, if you had used "wavify" instead of "wavelet", I would have mailed you a ham out of sheer glee.
Parent
Good for Science, Bad for Law (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good for Science, Bad for Law (Score:4, Insightful)
Scott Peterson was convicted based on circumstantial evidence and just being a bad guy. Forensic evidence did nothing. Prosecutors don't have to worry.
Parent
Its good, look at what happened with OJ (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Its good, look at what happened with OJ (Score:5, Insightful)
CSI is a good show, but it's just that, a show. The photographic close ups are the best. I remember one where they had a photo of a girl, there was a blur in her eye which they managed to extrapolate into a picture of her killer, pin sharp. It just not feasible.
I also love the nice sharp finger prints they take off wood, no hint of wood grain.
A bit more realism would be nice.
Parent
Re:Its good, look at what happened with OJ (Score:5, Informative)
It is way more complicated than that. Even if it weren't, your point is not relevant.
The question in the criminal trial is not whether the (non-accused) person giving the evidence is guilty, it is whether the evidence has been presented to find the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that the person giving evidence took the 5th cannot be used to imply their guilt, but it does deprive the court of the evidence needed to judge the value of other evidence. That clearly leaves the evidence in doubt. It is not that it was made weaker by the refusal to testify, but that it was not given adequate strength by favourable testimony.
Even the fact that the accused didn't testify will have this result. If they do have testify as to their innocence, then as long as they don't screw up (which is an extreme risk in testifying in your own trial since any slip-up is more damning because it comes from your own mouth), they will provide more evidence in their favour than if they do not testify.
The difference may seem to be one of semantics, but it is a difference well understood by lawyers. It's a bitch for judges to try to explain it to juries though.
The beyond reasonable doubt standard does tend to favour the accused anywhere the evidence is weak or lacks support - but of course it's meant to do that.
Parent
Re:Its good, look at what happened with OJ (Score:4, Informative)
In the OJ case, it wasn't about believing the forensics, it was about believing whether or not the forensics were tampered with. It's not like the LAPD (at the time) was the most honest of police forces.
Parent
Re:Its good, look at what happened with OJ (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Overall, it's good (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Everything is fine. (Score:4, Insightful)
2) Jury instruction should be enough of a factor. Also, your reliance on the veracity of eye witness testimony [colchsfc.ac.uk] is amusing, considering how unreliable IT is.
More proof on unreliability of eye witness (Score:5, Informative)
and here [acfnewsource.org], and again. [thegreenman.net.au]
Parent
Full of bad science (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Full of bad science (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, my friends took a lecture series on forensics, and came back after every session talking about how much time each guest speaker put into informing the class of just how wrong CSI is about so very many very basic, important things.
The science on the show is junk. Almost nothing is right- it's wrong way more often than right.
Just one blatant example? It's apparently really, really, really, really difficult to estimate time of death from a body alone. On these shows, they pretend to be able to estimate TOD very accurately. It's a joke, except that it sets up people to expect a real-life forensics expert to do things they can't possibly do.
So, in the final analysis, it's a double-edged sword, but it's more bad than good, just because it spreads soooo much disinformation, without enough warning that "the science in this show is fake, fake, fake; you won't learn anything true; don't believe a thing you see here, this is written by a TV show hack without review for technical validity of any kind". Really, it should have that kind of warning, the science to these shows is so far off.
Parent
CSI isn't bad (Score:5, Interesting)
As for the submitter's question, eyewitness accounts are usually the absolute worst forms of evidence. It's especially bad when the witness doesn't actually know the defendant.
And I would say relevations regarding the liberties taken by cops with the Bill of Rights and Miranda have shaken faith in confessions more than shows like CSI have.
I'd say that having juries full of self-styled experts based on TV knowledge ain't great. But it's better than it was in the 90's, when you could snow over a jury with science evidence debate they don't understand. Used to be an easy way to get reasonable doubt.
All in all, I don't think education is a bad thing, and as I said CSI doesn't do a bad job. As long as the juries don't think they're experts, it should be OK.
How many of these positions are there? (Score:5, Interesting)
Prosecutors have more to worry about (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Only One Good CSI (Score:5, Informative)
That said, the CSI craze has caused an outbreak of stupidity. Recently, a friend received a stolen check where she works. Since she is the general manager of the store, she had to go to the bank and work out the details. The bank teller (besides being an ass) made the comment that my friend shouldn't "touch the check too often as they might get her fingerprints" and she would get in trouble. Honest truth, those were the bank teller's words. My friend responded with "CSI fan, eh?"
I have another friend that can't stand the show on the grounds of how unrealistic it portraits criminal investigation. Being he was a prosecutor for numerous years, his main beef is that the CSI officers are never involved with the interrogation of the suspects and that the usually hand over their evidence to the investigating office. He then does all the foot work. He also says that the CSI folks don't carry firearms, but he concedes that might vary from office to office. He really dislikes the Miami show since the Caruso character is ordering police officers around all the time, which he says never happens.
There you go, the $0.02 from some guy off the street.
CSI discussed on NPR's All Things Considered (Score:5, Informative)
Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Eyewitness accounts are notoriously innacurate and misleading. A number of studies [truthinjustice.org] have found that people who witness criminal situations (and hence are under stress) cannot remember (and can even "invent" specifics about) the incidents.
or even outright confessions,
Confessions are also not reliable. Once again, under stress, an individual can be suggested to confess to thing he or she has not done (which is why you should take advantage of your rights and stay silent until your lawyer is present). A number of the cases that have recently been overturned by DNA evidence involved confessions. Yet years later we can prove these people are innocent.
If these CSI-educated juries are prone to be more cautious in making decisions about guilt, then IMO it's probably a good thing.
Shouldn't that be "Good for Criminals?" (Score:5, Funny)
I sure have cleaned up my evidence-leaving ways, seeing all the good tips on these reality shows.
Heck, if the witness-relocation program didn't keep moving me about, I'd be caught by now, for sure!
ONE WORD: (Score:4, Funny)
-
CSI (Score:5, Funny)
I always get a good laugh out of the magic scanner machine. They rinse a q-tip into a little test tube, put the test tube into a rack, the rack gets roboticaly loaded into a machine, there is a couple of seconds of the sound of a dot matrix printer, and the "tech" says in a serious voice, "It's a piece of rubber from the tire of a 1989 green chevy pickup truck! There were only 1000 of this model produced of which only 17 are still on the road and only one is registered in this state. The owner is the suspects sister!"
At this point they confront the sister who admits that she really was in town after all and she did cut up the body, disolve it in lye, grid up the bones and throw the dust in the Atlantic, "but he was already dead."
Since one of the teeth didn't get ground up all the way they are able to put the tooth back into the magic scanner (cue more dot matrix printer sounds) and show he really died of poisoning on tuesday when the sister said that she saw him alive on wednesday.
They then connect to a national database that tracks the cash purchases of everyone in the country for the last 10 years (here we are treated to the sound of a 9600baud modem, dee,doo,deeeeeeeeee,doooo,dooooooooo!) to show that last August she bought some rat poison when she was in Chicago for a business trip and had an affair with the dead guy.
They confront her again and this time she admits she did it. We get about 20 seconds of the main character finally on a date with the cute scientist from out of town when his pager goes off (no nooky for you) and its time to watch an ad for a new cure for erectile disfunction ( when a quiet time becomes the right time) .
Pipetting (Score:5, Funny)
Also, if you ever see a M.E. kneeling over my corpse, touching my hair and saying "oh, poor baby, who did this to you?" you have my permission to slap her! Or as David Caruso would say, "You have my permission...[dramatically puts sunglasses on]...to slap her."
Of course it is. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
CSI != real forensics :) (Score:5, Informative)
My prof actually discourages people from going into forensic sciences because really there aren't that many jobs. And she would know! Yes she's a well known forensic anthropologist working on some high profile cases (including the Peterson case) but she also teaches at a university. Doing case work is not her total bread and butter.
I'll also say that a lot of the people in my class are very influenced by the CSI shows and think that forensic work is all computers and microscopes and pretty things. They don't realize they have to deal with dead and bloated bodies, gunshot trauma, and other things that you shouldn't be seeing in slides at 9:30 in the morning (this morning it was maggots. Needless to say, I didn't have anything with rice for lunch). I don't think CSI will have the dalmation effect for forensic sciences (ie, people saw 101 Dalmations and went out and bought dalmation puppies because they were OH SO CUTE.. only to realize that they couldn't deal with the breed and gave the dogs away), but I will say I have to deal with a lot of tarts in my classes who I'd rather kick to the curb since they just want to wear tight little tshirts look pretty like they do on CSI.
Re:CSI (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:CSI (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Inaccurate? (Score:4, Informative)
No, that's Crossing Jordan.
But I like how on the cop shows, the cops do all the work, question witnesses, etc. Then on the detective shows, it's the detectives who work the evidence, question witnesses, etc.
Then you have CSI, a show about the crime lab, and even after having an episode where one of the main characters says, "we're just the crime lab; we don't question witnesses," all the crime lab folks do the detective work, question witnesses, etc.
Crossing Jordan, like Quincy, is about a medical examiner who, can you guess...follows up on evidence, searches crime scenes, questions witnesses, etc.
Parent
Re:No Need to throw Insults (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent