This article on “crime scene imperfections” was very educational and also very unsettling. This article talks about how crime investigation shows are sometimes far from the truth. The National Academy of Sciences has observed these shows and has found “various continuity errors” from the show to actual government proceedings. In addition to that, the National Academy of Sciences also discovered that the field of forensic science is “grossly deficient.”
One of the reasons for this is because many forensic labs are poorly funded and staffed with scientists who are poorly trained. The N.A.S. also said that the problem with forensic science is that there is little evidence of the accuracy and reliability of most forensic methods. Especially ones that rely on expert interpretation.
Some techniques such as “Nuclear DNA analysis” only have a miniscule likelihood of error, whereas, many other well known methods have no proof that they work consistently. Methods such as those that can identify a guilty person or link a weapon to a crime scene are those that are being called into question. It is believed that these processes can help focus an investigation but can not always provide infallible evidence of guilt. Even in fingerprint analysis, it is said that the final ruling can be biased because of an examiners knowledge of the case. These Examiners have sometimes disagreed wit their own past conclusions when viewing the prints in a different context.
In the end, the N.A.S. makes many suggestions for the improvement of forensic science but there appears to be a lot of work before it becomes a highly-respected field of science.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/opinion/21sat2.html
9 comments:
This article was well summarized as it included all of the necessary details without going too much into the additional detail that we could read ourselves in the article. Blair also well summarizes the main point of the article, that being that there is a lot more improvement that needs to occur in the field of forensic science to make it a more prestigious field. Overall I like the article because many of the past blog posts have been about people who were innocent being wrongly convicted which is basically proof for this article when it says that it has been inconsistent.
This summary would have been made better if specific tests that have a higher likelihood of error were named instead of what the tests do. Also, I think that the summary would have been better if it included whether or not this has been a long running controversy or if it is a rather new one.
This article and summary reminded me that the scientists who run the tests know the background on the case that could influence their interpretations. I had known it but I never really thought about it.
3 aspects of the review that were particularly well presented were the examples that were stated. i also liked how it informed you that what we see on t.v. is not really forensics. The third thing that i really liked was the way that it was written. it was not hard to read, but was very interesting. 2 suggestions on how the review could have been made even better are they could of used some t.v. shows in there example, and they could have given some more examples. 1 aspect that impressed me was that so much of the T.V. shows had fiction in it.
"Crime Scene Imperfections" was an interesting article about the various improvements needed in the field of forensics. This article was well summarized and included all of the necessary details, without adding unimportant information. The presentation also summed up the main idea of the article wisely, considering the vast number of improvements that could have been brought up. I found this article to be very interesting and unique since most of the articles presented are about people wrongly convicted and this article proves that the field of forensics is not always accurate. However, this summary would have been better if we learned which specific tests have a higher chance of error as opposed to what the tests do. As well as that, I would have liked to been told if this dilemma has been an on-going controversy or if it has just been brought up. One thing that impressed me about this presentation was that I never really thought about how the scientists running the tests could have biased opinions, which lead to incorrect results. From this article, I am now aware that in some cases, this might alter the convictions made, which is a little frightening.
One thing is that he did a nice job summarizing the article's point of the need for improvement in foreniscs to make it more successful. A second thing I liked is that he showed us that these shows really do a poor job of being accurate to what is actually real. Thirdly he did a nice job using this article to show the errors in forensic science. One way this could have been better is if he showed exact tv shows which support this article. Also it could have been better if he used a quote or two to show how it is wrong. One thing I learned was that these tv shows errors in science, I just always assumed the stuff they did was right.
This article was very well presented and structured well. Blair used enough details. I also liked this article because Blair explained how examiners can have biased conclusions because of their knowledge of the case. Blair did a good job enlightening the reader by explaining Nuclear DNA analysis.
I think this article has room for improvement. Quotations would add even more detail. Also, if Blair could have included how controversal this topic really is. I kept wondering whether this was a hot topic in this field of science.
I enjoyed reading this article because it gives a different viewpoint on forensic science. It was a nice change of pace.
This article was well summarized as it included all of the necessary details without going too much into the additional detail that we could read ourselves in the article. Blair also well summarizes the main point of the article, that being that there is a lot more improvement that needs to occur in the field of forensic science to One way this could have been better is if he showed exact tv shows which support this article. Also it could have been better if he used a quote or two to show how it is wrong. One thing I learned was that these tv shows errors in science, I just always assumed the stuff they did was right.
make it a more prestigious field.
Blair summarized the article "Crime Scene Imperfections". He did a good job summarizing the main points of the article. Also, it was interesting how he was able to inform the reader about all the necessary information without making it too confusing. In addition, his statement about a need for improvement in the forensics field was intriguing.
The summary could have been improved if Blair had given some examples of tests that are more likely to contain errors. Also, it would have been interesting to hear if this problem with forensics has been ongoing or just occurred.
I have learned from this article that forensic scientists are actually able to interpret the information differently which can be a little frightening.
This article was well summarized giving the main ideas needed to understand the happened in the article. I liked how he brought up the many improvements that could’ve been brought up. I liked how Blair showed how forensics actually helps in the real world. This summary could have been better if we learned a more about the past. Also if we learned which specific tests have a higher chance of error. This article taught me that that cases and convictions might be changed after the original trial is over.
This article summary was good because it provided the necessary details while not giving too much of the article away, so the reader is compelled to read the article itself. The topic of the article is also interesting, and, as Blair put it, very unsettling. To think that people can be let down by something that is supposed to be steadfast is a bit disconcerting. Another area that the review covered well was the amount of detail for each point was good, because it allowed the reader to understand without being overly complicated.
One area of improvement is when the review says "...many other well known methods...", there are no well known methods listed. There were also areas where some examples needed to be listed, and the absence of these examples makes the review a little confusing.
I thought it was interesting that the National Academy of Science has only recently discovered that forensics is "grossly deficient", because it must have been even worse prior to the recent discovery.
Post a Comment