Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Jersey 101.5)   Detective: CSI is ruining our jury members because they're asking for crazy technology that doesn't exist   (nj1015.com) divider line 162
    More: Obvious, CSI, New Jersey  
•       •       •

8317 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jun 2013 at 11:33 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



162 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-28 12:12:52 PM  

weapon13: special20: ENHANCE! ENHANCE! ENHANCE!

Wait, is everyone saying this isn't real as well?

Enhance

ENHANCE! ENHANCE! ENHANCE!


Uncrop.
 
2013-06-28 12:15:57 PM  

Aarontology: Haven't lawyers and judges been saying this for a while now?

People on juries keep asking for types of evidence not relevant to the case (DNA testing) for example.


This is a link from NJ 101.5, the radio station that will make you long for the nuanced intellectual discussions
of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
 
2013-06-28 12:16:25 PM  

strangeluck: Based on what I've read before, all of the tech they use on the show does technically exist, but in reality the stuff is unimaginably expensive, and a real police department wouldn't have even half of it.

Although I do question the DNA results back in under 5 hours thing on the show.

CSI was awesome when it first started. As far as I could tell they used normal real tech most departments would have, and had separate people doing all the various stuff like in a real crime lab. But then they slowly loaded down the show with super tech, and had the CSI's themselves doing damn near every lab function like a super scientist.

I'm waiting to see how long it is before they have the CSI's take over the medical examiners role as well.


i.telegraph.co.uk
Over my dead body!
 
2013-06-28 12:16:27 PM  
Maybe if they quit using junk science like bite marks and blood splatter, they'd be more believable.
 
2013-06-28 12:17:38 PM  
I don't know why they do this.  St. Elsewhere didn't use tricorder technology for diagnosing injury and disease, and that was a perfectly entertaining show.  Just montage the fark out of the boring parts, but pop the audience back with a biatchin discovery or enlightenment.  Keep it real or call it sci-fi.
 
2013-06-28 12:18:14 PM  
it is only laborious when you are trying to pin the crime on someone with an alibi.
 
2013-06-28 12:18:34 PM  
You mean there's not a button on a computer that automatically "enhances" low-rez photos and makes them high-rez? Get the fark outta here.
 
2013-06-28 12:19:27 PM  

raerae1980: Aarontology:
Yes.   I remember hearing about this back as an undergrad almost 8 years ago.   My professor also mentioned how fingerprints are becoming questionable because no one has really tested out the theory that they are unique to you.   In other words, how do we know that no two people have the same fingerprints?


The problem with fingerprints is more that analysts go off a partial, smudged print and claim 100% certainty.  And bite marks?  Might as well use horoscopes...
Forensic Tools: what's reliable and what is not
 
2013-06-28 12:20:37 PM  
If you think that fingerprints are actually detectable "individualizing" characteristics, or that bite marks, firearm casing ballistic matching, etc are pieces of evidence based in sound science, you are wrong.  DNA is it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/forensics-on-trial.html
 
2013-06-28 12:22:49 PM  

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: If you think that fingerprints are actually detectable "individualizing" characteristics, or that bite marks, firearm casing ballistic matching, etc are pieces of evidence based in sound science, you are wrong.  DNA is it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/forensics-on-trial.html



DNA is not 100% either.  And certainty not under current testing standards where only a subset of markers are matched.  The problems are analogous to fingerprints.
 
2013-06-28 12:23:46 PM  
That technology does not exist because people who create technology care very little about cops.  Plus cops are complete morons when it comes to technology.
 
2013-06-28 12:26:29 PM  

oldfarthenry: `Can the perp be identified by a flatus sample he left at the scene? I thought the FBI has a data bank of farts from every person in 'merikuh - like DNA?'


Activated carbon undies FTW.
 
2013-06-28 12:26:30 PM  

Mambo Bananapatch: strangeluck: Based on what I've read before, all of the tech they use on the show does technically exist, but in reality the stuff is unimaginably expensive, and a real police department wouldn't have even half of it.

Although I do question the DNA results back in under 5 hours thing on the show.

CSI was awesome when it first started. As far as I could tell they used normal real tech most departments would have, and had separate people doing all the various stuff like in a real crime lab. But then they slowly loaded down the show with super tech, and had the CSI's themselves doing damn near every lab function like a super scientist.

I'm waiting to see how long it is before they have the CSI's take over the medical examiners role as well.

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x387]
Over my dead body!


Quincy, FTW!

I attended an autopsy once in the late 1980s, and I kept thinking about the scene where Quincy got out of teaching a two hour class to a bunch of rookie cops by making them all throw up or pass out in 5 minutes.
 
2013-06-28 12:27:00 PM  
No "knock-knock" joke, yet?

/hey, somebody had to do it

//stop looking at me like that
 
2013-06-28 12:27:41 PM  

Koggie: I can make a  GUI interface usingvisual basic totrack the killer's IP address if that will help.


Move over, it'll go faster if I help *frantically types on half of Koggie's keyboard*
 
2013-06-28 12:29:10 PM  

Carth: Mentat: Then stop picking idiot jurors instead of chasing away anyone with a brain who might actually try to think about the evidence they're seeing.

Exactly. Or flat out ask "do you watch CSI or any crime shows" and dismiss anyone who does.


groppet: Well get better at picking jury members. Maybe a question should be "Do you watch CSI?"


And as Carth said, dismiss anyone who does watch those shows.
 
2013-06-28 12:29:15 PM  

Mikey1969: Aarontology: Haven't lawyers and judges been saying this for a while now?

People on juries keep asking for types of evidence not relevant to the case (DNA testing) for example.

THIS...

This isn't new news, I've been hearing this for at least 5 years now, I don't know why people still seem shocked by this.


"The NSA is spying on us?!?!"
"Reality shows are scripted?!?!"
"Politicians lie?!?!"
"He isn't a French model?!?!"
 
2013-06-28 12:30:05 PM  

give me doughnuts: I attended an autopsy once in the late 1980s, and I kept thinking about the scene where Quincy got out of teaching a two hour class to a bunch of rookie cops by making them all throw up or pass out in 5 minutes.


That particular scene seemed very realistic.
 
2013-06-28 12:30:50 PM  
People are stupid. This is news?
 
2013-06-28 12:31:17 PM  
Since when can juries ask questions?

I don't remember that part of the trial when I served, unless this can happen in a grand jury.
 
2013-06-28 12:31:22 PM  

2KanZam: vernonFL: /it doesn't happen like that? There aren't hot goth chicks in the science labs?


Why?  Is there one on NCIS now?


Not amused
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-06-28 12:32:53 PM  
I would like to encourage everyone who owns a business to go buy yourself some 5mp axis cameras. At that point you will actually have forensics level resolution.
 
2013-06-28 12:34:32 PM  
Trance354: There are hot goth chicks in the lab, but mine had serious daddy issues. She also said that while the tech exists, one lab doesn't have access to all of it. The rest of the world will send their evidence to the regional office to get the pertinent tests done, if needed. Those things cost money, so if the detectives can get a confession, the tests aren't done. Also, those detectives telling you that they have you're DNA from the crime scene? They are lying to you. That particular ex-gf never watched any of those shows, mostly because they pissed her off. Angry goth sex is fun, but I think she figured out what I was doing rather quickly.
 
2013-06-28 12:35:39 PM  

vernonFL: I found a partial print from a bullet fragment and ran it through AFIS and it was a perfect match to our suspect.

/it doesn't happen like that? There aren't hot goth chicks in the science labs?


Is that a 12-core monitor?

/ got nuthin'
 
2013-06-28 12:35:43 PM  

Aarontology: Haven't lawyers and judges been saying this for a while now?

People on juries keep asking for types of evidence not relevant to the case (DNA testing) for example.


This is at least the third time I've seen it on Fark.
 
2013-06-28 12:38:59 PM  

BafflerMeal: DNA is not 100% either. And certainty not under current testing standards where only a subset of markers are matched. The problems are analogous to fingerprints.


BUT, there is one important distinction.  A bad or contaminated DNA sample will not give you a match to the WRONG person.  it will give you a match to NO person.

HIstorical note:  That little piece of information was never shared with the O.J. jury.  I remember seeing some of them on (IIRC) Larry King afterward, and they said that had they known this, they never would have disregarded the DNA evidence to the extent they did.
 
2013-06-28 12:40:54 PM  
It's actually STAR TREK's fault, for popularizing and making semi-mainstream the deus ex machina of using some whiz-bang science to solve plot twists.  Heck, Trek scriptwriters would just say "TECH" on the script, and then Michael Okuda would just make up some shiat for them.
 
2013-06-28 12:42:27 PM  
i183.photobucket.com

Everyone knows that they can't put anything on TV that isn't real.
 
2013-06-28 12:42:53 PM  

Highroller48: BafflerMeal: DNA is not 100% either. And certainty not under current testing standards where only a subset of markers are matched. The problems are analogous to fingerprints.

BUT, there is one important distinction.  A bad or contaminated DNA sample will not give you a match to the WRONG person.  it will give you a match to NO person.

HIstorical note:  That little piece of information was never shared with the O.J. jury.  I remember seeing some of them on (IIRC) Larry King afterward, and they said that had they known this, they never would have disregarded the DNA evidence to the extent they did.



That is a good point.
 
2013-06-28 12:43:19 PM  

raerae1980: Aarontology: Haven't lawyers and judges been saying this for a while now?

People on juries keep asking for types of evidence not relevant to the case (DNA testing) for example.

Yes.   I remember hearing about this back as an undergrad almost 8 years ago.   My professor also mentioned how fingerprints are becoming questionable because no one has really tested out the theory that they are unique to you.   In other words, how do we know that no two people have the same fingerprints?


I guess they could tell you if two people's names came up on a full print search...
 
2013-06-28 12:44:52 PM  

BafflerMeal: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: If you think that fingerprints are actually detectable "individualizing" characteristics, or that bite marks, firearm casing ballistic matching, etc are pieces of evidence based in sound science, you are wrong.  DNA is it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/forensics-on-trial.html


DNA is not 100% either.  And certainty not under current testing standards where only a subset of markers are matched.  The problems are analogous to fingerprints.


Fair enough, we are limited by detectable SNiPs, but the ability to do so reliably has always been increasing and allows for investigations to be revisited (Assuming you come from a civilized place without the death penalty).  I don't think it is the same problem as with fingerprints because that is literally, "Hey, this looks like it, what do you think George?"  DNA analysis uses clearly defined and programmed metrics not ACE-V where each letter of the acronym is just another word for look closely.  Also a person analyzing a DNA sample today will get the same result by the same metrics tomorrow.  Whereas a fingerprint examiner can produce variability in their determination depending on how tired they are that day.
 
2013-06-28 12:47:45 PM  
To put this in perspective, by the time you get to considering whether the science in CSI is real or not, you've already failed at distinguishing fantasy from reality.  The very premise of CSI-- that forensic science solves crimes-- is a flight of fancy that almost puts the show in the realm of speculative fiction on its own.

Forensic science is not a primary means of investigation.  The bulk of the work of solving crimes is footwork, e.g. uniformed officers going around asking questions, taking notes, and detectives looking for means, motive, and opportunity.  Forensic science is the confirmation that the process hasn't screwed up somewhere, not the process itself.

//Law and Order, the original one, apparently had it reasonably close to how crime-fighting actually works (in an idealized sense, obviously, and with more grunt work and fewer brilliant scenery-inspired epiphanies).
 
2013-06-28 12:52:12 PM  
I'll get around to that just as soon as prosecutors stop thinking Law&Order court behavior is constitutional.
 
2013-06-28 12:52:14 PM  

Koggie: I can make a  GUI interface using visual basic to track the killer's IP address if that will help.


That's one of my favorites...

Also:

(link goes to site homepage)

nedroid.com
 
2013-06-28 12:57:11 PM  
In the united states, you are not judged by a jury of 12 of your peers. You are judged by 12 people who either don't want to be there because they have better things to do and YOU are the reason their life is being disrupted, or they want to be there because they want to be important in something.

"I can't be judged by my peers on a jury, because I'm smart enough to get out of jury duty."

Sincerely
- Someone who gets called EVERY YEAR for jury duty, then sits in a room for six hours before being released because they didn't need me.
 
2013-06-28 01:00:37 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Law and Order, the original one, apparently had it reasonably close to how crime-fighting actually works


I thought crime-fighting was done by guys in tights. Is that not the case any more?

cultur-ed.edforum.net

2.bp.blogspot.com

omelete.uol.com.br

www.hyperborea.org
 
2013-06-28 01:01:02 PM  

Carth: Mithiwithi: groppet: Well get better at picking jury members. Maybe a question should be "Do you watch CSI?"

This only works if the spoilsport judges actually allow you to use that as a basis for ejecting a juror. You only get so many peremptory challenges.

That, and people will start using it as an excuse to get out of jury duty. You'd have to make them take a pop quiz to prove they actually watch the show.

Getting out of jury duty is easy. Just mention you believe and support jury nullification and the judge will dismiss you.


Wear a shirt with the SCOTUS ruling on jury nullification on it
 
2013-06-28 01:02:37 PM  

Wodan11: It's actually STAR TREK's fault, for popularizing and making semi-mainstream the deus ex machina of using some whiz-bang science to solve plot twists.


Several cold cases were recently solved when the crime lab figured out how to reverse the polarity on the main deflector dish and then light up the cloaked evidence with an inverse tachyon beam after routing the full power of the warp engines through the plasma bypass.
 
2013-06-28 01:03:15 PM  
Where is LE getting this feedback from jurors?  I don't think jurors get to ask for DNA test results during trials.  Are jurors debriefed about their decision-making process routinely, or is this "CSI effect" presumed from random news reports of what a few jurors said  after trials?

It seems likely that LE is projecting defense attorneys' questions onto jurors who vote to acquit.
 
2013-06-28 01:03:54 PM  
I thought they just called psychics like Miss Cleo to solve all the cases.

Just the hard ones.
 
2013-06-28 01:03:56 PM  

Koggie: I can make a  GUI interface usingvisual basic totrack the killer's IP address if that will help.


Would it help if we shared a keyboard?
 
2013-06-28 01:05:23 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Maybe it's time to do away with the whole jury concept and just put a panel of judges in place to evaluate the evidence and arguments.

I've met my peers. I wouldn't trust them to decide on where to go to lunch, much less to determine my guilt or innocence.


We tried that.  We fought a war to get away from the country that wanted us to keep trying that.
 
2013-06-28 01:06:12 PM  
Several cold cases were recently solved when the crime lab figured out how to reverse the polarity on the main deflector dish and then light up the cloaked evidence with an inverse tachyon beam after routing the full power of the warp engines through the plasma bypass

Yea but the destroyed the plasma relays in the process.
 
2013-06-28 01:07:16 PM  

Petit_Merdeux: Several cold cases were recently solved when the crime lab figured out how to reverse the polarity on the main deflector dish and then light up the cloaked evidence with an inverse tachyon beam after routing the full power of the warp engines through the plasma bypass.


Sounds like someone needs a refresher course. It's all ball-bearings these days.
 
2013-06-28 01:08:01 PM  

Ambitwistor: [www.lolwtfcomics.com image 366x1500]


My god, how fake that is.

I mean, Caruso and Sinise aren't even on the same damn show.
 
2013-06-28 01:08:30 PM  

Mikey1969: Aarontology: Haven't lawyers and judges been saying this for a while now?

People on juries keep asking for types of evidence not relevant to the case (DNA testing) for example.

THIS...

This isn't new news, I've been hearing this for at least 5 years now, I don't know why people still seem shocked by this.


This story gets green lit to fark every quarter it seems.
 
2013-06-28 01:11:39 PM  
I didn't read tfa but perhaps if they didn't eliminate all of the intelligent /educated people during jury selection this wouldn't be a problem.
 
2013-06-28 01:12:17 PM  
Goth chix like it in the butt.
 
2013-06-28 01:14:53 PM  
On those Investigate/Discovery and Bio Channel shows about sensational murders, it usually takes them about 7 years to name a killer.  Long after interviewing 200 suspects with motive and opportunity.

Then a cold-case detective finally discovers that the wife or husband took out a $2 million insurance policy on the spouse, just two weeks before the homicide(s).

/Of course I wouldn't be caught dead watching those shows
 
2013-06-28 01:19:55 PM  
Funny years ago when I was on a Grand Jury that shiate was happening.  Half the dopes had to be reminded that we weren't even trying the got damned case, just saying if case deserved an indictment.

Between that, the horrific nature of all the crap we had to listen to all day, and the woman that kept watching Blue Collar Comics DVDs over and over and over for the whole two week duration of the thing, I wept for humanity rather frequently.
 
Displayed 50 of 162 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report