forensic science and crime scene investigation

Response to Reketer Barber
The popularity of shows like CSI has led to widespread misperceptions about the quality and nature of forensic science. As you point out, the CSI effect could lead to wrongful acquittals, but it is equally possible that jurors might wrongfully convict based on perceptions of the strength of forensic evidence admitted into the trial. As Gaensslen & Larsen (2019) “jurors bring expectations to the jury room that are based on watching television,” (1.1). One of those expectations is related to the amount of time it takes to process forensic evidence. On television, the scripted shows make it seem like forensic evidence is processed almost instantaneously, and that the results offer cut and dry facts, when in reality the time it takes to process the data is much longer and the results less conclusive.
Response to Barbara Larios
It is interesting to focus on both the sentencing and the charges, as you do in this post. While Shelton (2008) points out, the CSI effect might not be as strong as has been suspected, this type of survey overlooks the fact that some individual jurors may be susceptible to the CSI effect. It is not just the inability to distinguish between reality and fiction, either—what matters are the unconscious tendencies that jurors can develop after watching many episodes of CSI shows and believing that the crime scene investigation process and forensic science methods work the same way in real life as on television. There are certainly similarities, and many of the television depictions can help jurors to better understand what to expect from forensic science. On the other hand, jurors can cultivate unrealistic expectations of what forensic science can offer and how the evidence can and should be interpreted.
Assignment 2
Response to Briony Braswell
Crime scene investigation is as methodical as you describe, first involving a thorough survey and then proceeding to analyze each piece of evidence and determining its merits or value. Not all items at the scene can be considered significant, and it is important to be able to discern which pieces of evidence are going to be valuable enough to warrant the resources required to run forensic testing Gaensslen & Larsen (2019). Later, the investigative team can develop hypotheses that allow for more informed choices as to which forensic science tools to use and how to analyze the evidence. Protective gear is often important, not just to protect the crime scene investigators but also to prevent the contamination of the evidence. Placing the evidence in proper sealed containers, labeled correctly and stored under tight security, ensures that no tampering will take place that would sully the results of the tests or the validity of the data.
Response to Ashley Long
The thoroughness of the crime scene search and investigation can make the process take a long time—which is indeed something that is not properly treated on television shows like CSI. All the paperwork that is involved seems tedious, and of course it actually is tedious. Yet the paperwork serves a definite function; it is not arbitrary. The proper documentation of all the evidence, including the signatures of the investigators, creates a more accurate and valid set of data. The abundance of tools and resources used to collect the data facilitate the speed of evidence collection, and also preserve the integrity of the evidence—much of which will be prone to degradation after exposure to oxygen and other environmental contaminants. Chain of custody, and proper data analysis, all become important components of a reliable, justifiable forensic science methodology.
References
Gaensslen, R. E., & Larsen, K. (2019). Introductory forensic science (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://content.ashford.edu/
Shelton, D. E. (2008, March). The ‘CSI effect:’ Does it really exist? (Links to an external site.) NIJ Journal, 259. Retrieved from https://www.nij.gov/journals/259/pages/csi-effect.aspx#author