Comment by pjc50
1 day ago
There's a big gap between "theoretically unreliable" and courts actually recognizing that, unfortunately. Lots of forensics is much more dubious than CSI would have you believe.
1 day ago
There's a big gap between "theoretically unreliable" and courts actually recognizing that, unfortunately. Lots of forensics is much more dubious than CSI would have you believe.
15 years ago an Israeli company was able to manufacture fake DNA evidence https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html
My girlfriends been having me watch law and order svu with her and to be honest it doesn't really even seem trustworthy with how they want to present it. The psychologist guy especially will come up with some wildly detailed assertions about who the criminal is based on nothing
Are we really going to go to a fictional TV show now?
It affects the jury. If the jury watches tv shows that builds the expectation that there is always a bunch of ballistics evidence etc and that it is always fool proof then they will 1) distrust when there isn’t that type of evidence (but enough other evidence) and 2) they will overvalue the evidence when it exists
1 reply →
If a fictional-but-popular TV show treats some kinds of evidence as more reliable than they really are, juries may be primed to believe in the kind of thing the TV show presents as legitimate.
2 replies →
There is a reason such shows are labeled "copaganda" - it affect people's perception of police and their procedures. It makes the dubious seem less dubious and more believable. I very highly doubt any jury is made aware of the rate of error or unreliability of the this stuff.
“Lots of forensics is much more dubious than CSI would have you believe.” was what was being replied to.
Sure you aren't watching Psych?