NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't actually follow the series but I have watched bits and pieces. Recently, I have been troubled by the claim that the crime investigation scientific techniques presented are faithful to those employed in real life. If so, isn't this series the equivalent to having a freely available international crime school on TV? Doesn't this pose a threat to the public, since criminals are learning how to avoid getting caught? While I feel that outlawing the law may be considered a breach of freedom of speech, do you think it would be justified on the basis of public safety or - at least - don't you think it is hugely irresponsible from the producer's part to publish the series? You tell me...

No.

Most of the Techniques on CSI are BS. Heck,they can't even get some of the scenes right. For example, a lady was murdered by a criminal armed with a 9mm glock, and they showed a necked case, a .357 sig...morons.

Ive watched some episodes of CSI, and I assure you that it wont help criminals avoid detection. Much of the evidence would be so insubstantial in real life that it probably wouldnt even be presented in court. For example, they connected a person to the crime from a rope fiber .
Something that does scare me is the Tom Clancy books. Some of the books describe terrorist attacks that could be so easily executed. For example, in one of his books, terrorists attacked a small-town mall in Colorado. If this were to happen for real, it would scar the country almost as badly as 9/11 did.

Doesn't this pose a threat to the public, since criminals are learning how to avoid getting caught? Most burglars still don't wear gloves when on the job and leave fingerprints everywhere. The use of fingerprints in detective work has been known for centuries, yet the criminal element has hardly learned from it.
The fact is, most criminals don't worry about commiting the 'perfect crime'. Even if they known what they ought to do to limit the amount of evidence they leave behind, most don't take the precautions.

CSI is a good program no matter what. Sure, it's no Grey's Anatomy or Prison Break (one word or two? I can't remember lol) but it's solid.

Strangely enough I had an opposite view (after watching one episode though).

For me the message was "WE WILL CATCH YOU, NO MATTER HOW CLEVER YOU THINK YOU ARE!"


I suppose that says more about me then it does about the show.

I'm not too worried. I've only seen CSI a very few times, but one of those was alongside an actual police officer who'd worked in crime scene investigation and a pair of biologists. By five minutes in, they were all giggling. By half an hour in, giggling had changed to outright laughter and exclamations such as "They're getting DNA from WHAT?" and "They're using WHAT as evidence?" I gather, in other words, that it's not exactly a model of scientific or procedural accuracy.

Personally, I'm just amused as heck by the mind-bogglingly silly dialogue they insert to explain things to the audience, where one investigator will tell another something that, given their job, they absolutely must know already (examples I can recall included explaining that you can reconstruct roughly what someone looked like from their skeleton, that bloodstains can show up under UV light, and that DNA could sometimes be extracted from hair). If they can't teach criminals how to successfully commit crimes, they may at least teach them how to state the blindingly obvious! :p

There pretty much isn't any thing in that show that is either true or accurate. For one, police departments don't even do their own forensics. They might have forensic teams, but all they do is bag the evidence and send it to a lab. Based on what the lab tells them, they put their case together.

CSI 'tells' us that the criminals are nearly always caught.

I know that the real CSI people are having a harder time collecting evidence and it all pretty much started when this show aired.

So yes, it is having an effect on investigations.

There was an article in the papers here in England that said it was harming prosecutions, becuase juries were asking for forensic evidence. That sounds normal, until you consider it was a FRAUD case, and the jury aquited him because his fingerprints wernt on any of the documents...

Of course that tabloid spin, and theres probably other reasons he was released, but thats how the paper portrayed it.

I'm not too worried. I've only seen CSI a very few times, but one of those was alongside an actual police officer who'd worked in crime scene investigation and a pair of biologists. By five minutes in, they were all giggling. By half an hour in, giggling had changed to outright laughter and exclamations such as "They're getting DNA from WHAT?" and "They're using WHAT as evidence?" I gather, in other words, that it's not exactly a model of scientific or procedural accuracy.
hehehehe.... I know the feeling of seeing your profession misrepresented on tv... it's a laugh... :D

I know that the real CSI people are having a harder time collecting evidence and it all pretty much started when this show aired.

So yes, it is having an effect on investigations.
Can you expand on that? Do you know someone or have you seen any information about it?

Can you expand on that? Do you know someone or have you seen any information about it?

Just what has been reported on the news.