Williams, Graham. “Exhibit A and Other True Crime Shows Can Fuel Misconceptions about Forensic Science.” The Conversation, 9 July 2019, theconversation.com/exhibit-a-and-other-true-crime-shows-can-fuel-misconceptions-about-forensic-science-120022.
Recently, the trustworthiness of forensic science has been questioned by some experts, but this article argues that it isn’t forensic science itself that provides untrustworthy conclusions. Rather, the way it’s misused by rogue scientists and misinterpreted in court is where the issue lies. Many techniques, such as DNA profiling, have come under fire in the past, but have been proved to provide indisputable evidence for a crime. However, another form of evidence known as touch DNA, which are DNA samples transferred to people or objects that someone has touched, was used in the crime documentary series Exhibit A. Touch DNA was used to create a DNA profile in the documentary, but the profile was not reliable and couldn’t be confirmed to match the suspect. Yet it was treated as though it was completely reliable information in Exhibit A. Despite the fact that incorrect use of forensic techniques caused uncertainty, the very nature of forensic science itself became scrutinized. Additionally, courts tend to require black and white answers from forensic scientists, even though the field doesn’t always provide definitive answers, which can cause inaccuracies in the interpretation of the evidence.
The entire field of forensic science being challenged due to misapplication of some of its procedures can definitely lead to incorrect assumptions of the field as a whole. As the article mentioned, it’s important that the future brings a more practical acceptance of the limitations of forensic science. The field itself is still reliable, but it’s also not something that can provide concrete evidence all the time, something that’s important to keep in mind when dealing with legal issues.
I thought that the article did a good job at keeping the reader engaged by making everything easy to understand but also quick and concise. I also liked how it was able to tie everything nicely together in its final paragraphs and provide a connection between touch DNA and the fact that forensic science is challenged. However, one thing I’d like to see is more examples of how misapplication of forensic techniques have ended up causing problems, which would further ground the argument and make it more believable.
6 comments:
Logan Glick
Forensics
Current Event 13
1/22/19
Williams, Graham. “Exhibit A and Other True Crime Shows Can Fuel Misconceptions about Forensic Science.” The Conversation, 9 July 2019, theconversation.com/exhibit-a-and-other-true-crime-shows-can-fuel-misconceptions-about-forensic-science-120022
Clara wrote a wonderful article about the trustworthiness of forensic science. Many people have begun questioning the effectiveness of forensic science, but Clara argues that its not the actual forensic science, it's the people using it incorrectly. She used some great sentences that explained how people are making the wrong conclusion, “Rather, the way it’s misused by rogue scientists and misinterpreted in court is where the issue lies.” This sentence is amazing because she properly says that the science is being misinterpreted. Another example of a great sentence she wrote, “However, another form of evidence known as touch DNA, which are DNA samples transferred to people or objects that someone has touched, was used in the crime documentary series Exhibit A.” This sentence is great because she explains that many other sources have been focusing on this issue. The documentary she mentioned adds a great outside source and makes her argument a lot stronger. Finally, Clara does a wonderful job summarizing data in order to prove her point, “Despite the fact that incorrect use of forensic techniques caused uncertainty, the very nature of forensic science itself became scrutinized.” This sentence is amazing and it shows how great her article was.
Even though Clara wrote a wonderful article she still has some areas she could improve on. An example of a sentence that could use improvement is, “The entire field of forensic science being challenged due to misapplication of some of its procedures can definitely lead to incorrect assumptions of the field as a whole.” In this sentence she makes generalizations that make her argument weaker. In order to improve this sentence I would specify what incorrect assumptions were made. Another sentence she could improve upon is, “The field itself is still reliable, but it’s also not something that can provide concrete evidence all the time, something that’s important to keep in mind when dealing with legal issues.” This sentence is too repetitive and highlights how she needs to expand on other ideas instead of repeating.
Overall, I really loved this article because Clara did a great job writing and summarizing her ideas. This article will change my opinion about forensic science because it proves how important it is to solving murders and other serious crimes. Even though many people are questioning the reliability of forensics, Clara has demonstrated to me that it will always be extremely important.
Masha Popovic
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event 13
Due January 23rd, 2020
Williams, Graham. “Exhibit A and Other True Crime Shows Can Fuel Misconceptions about Forensic Science.” The Conversation, 9 July 2019, theconversation.com/exhibit-a-and-other-true-crime-shows-can-fuel-misconceptions-about-forensic-science-120022.
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/
For current event number 13, I looked into Claras report on the article “Exhibit A and Other True Crime Shows Can Fuel Misconceptions about Forensic Science.” First of all, Clara did an excellent job with the introduction of her report. It was intriguing and drew me in as reader because of its questioning tone. I also enjoyed how concise and organized the information was. There was an natural flow that took place and allowed for a easy read. Lastly, I thought Clara did a great job on reflecting what she thought the author did well in his article.
However, I wish Clara showcased more opinionated response towards what the article was actually focusing on instead of commenting her opinion solely on the structure of the article, I also felt that she could have elaborated a bit more on the involvement of the court and how they can cause inaccuracies in the interpretation of evidence.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading about this interesting topic that Clara chose. Questioning wether forensic science provides trustworthy or untrustworthy conclusion is by far the most interesting topic I have read this year.
Angie Pearson
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event 13
January 23rd, 2020
Williams, Graham. “Exhibit A and Other True Crime Shows Can Fuel Misconceptions about Forensic Science.” The Conversation, 9 July 2019, theconversation.com/exhibit-a-and-other-true-crime-shows-can-fuel-misconceptions-about-forensic-science-120022.
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/
For current event 13, I have decided to review Clara's article on “Exhibit A and Other True Crime Shows Can Fuel Misconceptions about Forensic Science.” First off, Clara had a good hook to her piece which does a good job of bringing the reader in. Clara was also concise and organized with her information which made the report easy to follow. I also enjoyed how she argued forensic evidence is reliable but "it’s also not something that can provide concrete evidence all the time."
On the other hand, Clara could have talked about her perspective on the issue more rather than rephrasing the article. She could have also added a few quotes to strengthen her argument.
Clara wrote a great report on her topic. I think it is relevant and shows how the forensic field can be improved.
Randy Ayala Valdez
Mr. Ippolito
Forensic Science
22 January 2020
Williams, Graham. “Exhibit A and Other True Crime Shows Can Fuel Misconceptions about Forensic Science.” The Conversation, 9 July 2019, theconversation.com/exhibit-a-and-other-true-crime-shows-can-fuel-misconceptions-about-forensic-science-120022.
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/
Claira clearly recounts the ways forensic science can be faulty. She does not utilize very academic or “big: words to explain simple concepts, making it very easy to follow. She goes on to describe the ways forensic science can be misleading because the frequent misapplication of procedures. These practices then affect the ways decisions are made in courts. When arguing that the field of forensic science does not always supply scientists with concrete evidence, Claira mentions a myriad of techniques that have failed to produce sufficient evidence. By listing all of the methods that do not necessarily work, she strengthens her review and provides a sense of certainty. She does not merely claim that forensic science doesn’t provide definitive answers. Claira’s review is also organized in a quintessential manner, every notion and idea building off the other.
Claira could add more specificity to her review; I read it as a long stream of consciousness instead of a paper discussing the topic explored in the article from a critical lense. Claira can also scrutinize the writer a little more and disagree with what it said in the article. This is important because the article she studied is very opinionated.
I learned that forensic science can be arguably very unreliable in relation to the evaluation of a crime scene because the misapplication of certain procedures. I will continue to question the validity of science.
Randy Ayala Valdez
Mr. Ippolito
Forensic Science
22 January 2020
Williams, Graham. “Exhibit A and Other True Crime Shows Can Fuel Misconceptions about Forensic Science.” The Conversation, 9 July 2019, theconversation.com/exhibit-a-and-other-true-crime-shows-can-fuel-misconceptions-about-forensic-science-120022.
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/
Claira clearly recounts the ways forensic science can be faulty. She does not utilize very academic or “big: words to explain simple concepts, making it very easy to follow. She goes on to describe the ways forensic science can be misleading because the frequent misapplication of procedures. These practices then affect the ways decisions are made in courts. When arguing that the field of forensic science does not always supply scientists with concrete evidence, Claira mentions a myriad of techniques that have failed to produce sufficient evidence. By listing all of the methods that do not necessarily work, she strengthens her review and provides a sense of certainty. She does not merely claim that forensic science doesn’t provide definitive answers. Claira’s review is also organized in a quintessential manner, every notion and idea building off the other.
Claira could add more specificity to her review; I read it as a long stream of consciousness instead of a paper discussing the topic explored in the article from a critical lense. Claira can also scrutinize the writer a little more and disagree with what it said in the article. This is important because the article she studied is very opinionated.
I learned that forensic science can be arguably very unreliable in relation to the evaluation of a crime scene because the misapplication of certain procedures. I will continue to question the validity of science.
Randy Ayala Valdez
Mr. Ippolito
Forensic Science
22 January 2020
Williams, Graham. “Exhibit A and Other True Crime Shows Can Fuel Misconceptions about Forensic Science.” The Conversation, 9 July 2019, theconversation.com/exhibit-a-and-other-true-crime-shows-can-fuel-misconceptions-about-forensic-science-120022.
https://bhscsi.blogspot.com/
Claira clearly recounts the ways forensic science can be faulty. She does not utilize very academic or “big: words to explain simple concepts, making it very easy to follow. She goes on to describe the ways forensic science can be misleading because the frequent misapplication of procedures. These practices then affect the ways decisions are made in courts. When arguing that the field of forensic science does not always supply scientists with concrete evidence, Claira mentions a myriad of techniques that have failed to produce sufficient evidence. By listing all of the methods that do not necessarily work, she strengthens her review and provides a sense of certainty. She does not merely claim that forensic science doesn’t provide definitive answers. Claira’s review is also organized in a quintessential manner, every notion and idea building off the other.
Claira could add more specificity to her review; I read it as a long stream of consciousness instead of a paper discussing the topic explored in the article from a critical lense. Claira can also scrutinize the writer a little more and disagree with what it said in the article. This is important because the article she studied is very opinionated.
I learned that forensic science can be arguably very unreliable in relation to the evaluation of a crime scene because the misapplication of certain procedures. I will continue to question the validity of science.
Post a Comment