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 46
    More: Obvious, CSI, New Jersey  
•       •       •

8312 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jun 2013 at 11:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-28 10:23:52 AM  
6 votes:
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.
2013-06-28 11:38:48 AM  
4 votes:
Well get better at picking jury members. Maybe a question should be "Do you watch CSI?"
2013-06-28 11:52:42 AM  
3 votes:
On the upside I suppose it means that jurors are considering evidence more closely and not just taking the hearsay of witnesses or police involved. I'd still rather a guilty man walk because the jury thought more tests should have been done than an innocent man jailed because they took unreliable witnesses at their word.
2013-06-28 11:35:49 AM  
3 votes:
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.
2013-06-28 10:16:57 AM  
3 votes:
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.
2013-06-28 12:38:59 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:22:49 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:20:37 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:16:27 PM  
2 votes:
Maybe if they quit using junk science like bite marks and blood splatter, they'd be more believable.
2013-06-28 12:00:39 PM  
2 votes:
In my state, the state-run crime lab has been called out for manufacturing any evidence the prosecution wants. Similar allegations have been made for the federal crime lab. As someone who, like clockwork, gets called for district or superior court jury duty every two years I can tell you this - if a prosecutor uses any evidence from these corrupt organizations, I will not only toss it out, but I will zero-out the credibility of the state at that point. The state will need to have some smoking-gun, impossible to manufacture evidence that the defense just can't explain in any way for me to convict. No independent evidence? No conviction. If you want to argue that's not fair to genuine victims of a crime, then you a right. But when the state has no credibility, you cannot convict. And the saddest part? I served a few months ago and not a single case went before the jury - all were plea-bargained. The superior court judge came around and congratulated us all on closing out 19 separate cases (including a second degree murder.) Not a single one of us was called in for a trial.
2013-06-28 11:56:30 AM  
2 votes:

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.


Ummmm, they don't want free thinkers.
2013-06-28 11:55:43 AM  
2 votes:

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?
2013-06-28 11:46:50 AM  
2 votes:
www.lolwtfcomics.com
2013-06-28 11:42:22 AM  
2 votes:

special20: ENHANCE! ENHANCE! ENHANCE!


www.uproxx.com
2013-06-28 11:37:43 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-06-28 08:04:08 PM  
1 votes:

meanmutton: Well, good to know that we have jurors who blatently disregard the law and their role.

mooseyfate: I apologize, I consider "reasonable" to have been an unspoken standard. So I mistyped. I should have posted "ANY reasonable doubt". And I wasn't bounced, I was selected. And as I also pointed out, there were massive heaps of doubt practically smothering this case from start to finish. No one got even close to putting a gun in the hands of the accused. All the witnesses, however, placed a gun firmly in the hands of a man named Kevin (don't remember his last name at this second) aka Big Kev, but after a 10 minute phone call from an NOPD detective, they decided he wasn't a person of interest. Oh, did I mention that this Big Kev was ex-NOPD? Or that they've been unable to track him down since that phone call, even with the FBI and US Marshall's helping?


Yeah, I really made my own rules that week.  I quietly and impartially observed the trial and the evidence presented to me, then in deliberations talked 3 jurors into changing their verdict because they were basing their verdict of guilt solely on the fact that the two men on trial didn't testify.  I told them, "You literally can't do that.  If that's the ONLY reason you're voting guilty, by virtue of the law you HAVE to vote not guilty."  If I hadn't been there to say those things, those two men might be serving a life sentence right now.  I'm not saying we, as jurors, made the right call.  But we can only work with what we were given, and we were given NOTHING that said those two men pulled a trigger that night, let alone that they shot a man to death, or that they tried to cover it up.  If anything, it looked like the NOPD was protecting one of their own by throwing two neighborhood boys under the bus, but that didn't enter in to why I voted not guilty, because it wasn't relevant.  What was relevant was the evidence, the forensics, the expert witnesses, and the eyewitness testimony.  And none of those pointed towards those two men murdering someone.  Just wasn't there.
2013-06-28 03:08:53 PM  
1 votes:

Marcintosh: "They have some pre-conceived notions of what abilities we have. It leads them to ask some questions sometimes of detectives, of our crime scene detectives. 'Did you do this because I saw it on TV,' when that technology doesn't exist."
Welcome to a jury of your moronic peers.


It's the myth of hypercompetence. People have more contact with movies and video games than reality, so they don't realize how limited reality actually is.
2013-06-28 02:15:03 PM  
1 votes:

HAMMERTOE: new_york_monty: Then they were right to bounce you from the jury. The standard for guilt in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt.

Again- PROVEN guilty. Not "probably guilty" or "possibly guilty."


That isn't the standard.  "I have no reasonable doubts of his guilt" is the standard.

You should have been bounced from the jury. You can't even follow simple directions, and want to impose your own standard on America.
2013-06-28 02:14:23 PM  
1 votes:

HAMMERTOE: As a juror, it's you solemn duty to doubt. Your go-to position should always be, "Innocent until PROVEN guilty." (Not "maybe guilty" or "probably guilty".) This means that any reasonable doubt at all should be grounds for acquittal. You are the last line of defense the Defendant has. The entire system, from the police, to the CSI, to the DA, to the Judge, are all on the same team. They hang out at the same bars, and work in the same building, and generally see each other every day. The Judge will always give the benefit of the doubt to any of the others. The Defense attorney will try to work the system, but the deck is generally stacked against him as well as his client. And, you can pretty much forget about a fair trial if it's a Public Defender. They always try to get the defendant to plea-bargain, even if they're not guilty.


FTFY.

Defendant: "Your honor, I was with the lizard people on Omicron Persei 8 at the time, and any evidence to the contrary was placed there by Santa Clause to frame me since I beat him at baccarat that one time in college."

You: "Seems legit."
2013-06-28 02:12:51 PM  
1 votes:

Carousel Beast: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: 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.

So software doing image matches gets tired?

huh, learn something new every day.


No, but the software generates a list based on how many of 20 similar characteristics are present.  Many of these characteristics are not detected by the software itself but inputted by a user.  Then from a list of hundreds, a separate examiner has to use his fallible human sensory system to find a match.  Or did you think that the computer just scans through a massive database and pulls out the one true match?  Or do you believe far fetched scenarios on CSI more than the National Academy of Sciences which criticizes the lack of ANY scientific standards, absolutely zero central oversight with no intention of allowing academic institutions to see if fingerprint analysis is valid, and nonexistent regulation.

Or just ask Brandon Mayfield.  Dumbass.
2013-06-28 02:11:55 PM  
1 votes:

HAMMERTOE: new_york_monty: Then they were right to bounce you from the jury. The standard for guilt in criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt.

Again- PROVEN guilty. Not "probably guilty" or "possibly guilty."


The standard is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, no reasonable member of the community should doubt the verdict. Outliers will always have doubts (some people will object to anything) but those doubts are seen as unreasonable by most people. I'm not arguing that the accused should ever have to prove their innocence--that burden must rest solely on the prosecution (except in an affirmative defense). Regardless, the prosecution is not required to prove guilt beyond any doubt, simply beyond any reasonable doubt. Beyond any doubt is, quite frankly, an unreasonable standard.
2013-06-28 01:57:00 PM  
1 votes:
As a juror, it's you solemn duty to doubt. Your go-to position should always be, "Innocent until PROVEN guilty." (Not "maybe guilty" or "probably guilty".) This means that any doubt at all should be grounds for acquittal. You are the last line of defense the Defendant has. The entire system, from the police, to the CSI, to the DA, to the Judge, are all on the same team. They hang out at the same bars, and work in the same building, and generally see each other every day. The Judge will always give the benefit of the doubt to any of the others. The Defense attorney will try to work the system, but the deck is generally stacked against him as well as his client. And, you can pretty much forget about a fair trial if it's a Public Defender. They always try to get the defendant to plea-bargain, even if they're not guilty.
2013-06-28 01:53:00 PM  
1 votes:

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.


"In 2002, Lydia Fairchild was denied public assistance when DNA evidence showed that she was not related to her children. After hearing of a human chimera in New England, Karen Keegan, it was eventually found that she too was a chimera and thus had two sets of DNA." - Wiki
2013-06-28 01:45:39 PM  
1 votes:
Recently I had to get fingerprinted for a job, so I went in to where they do that and it turns out I don't have fingerprints. I mean, you can see them, but they don't show up on either the ink style or the computer scanner style. Apparently the ridges are too shallow and they just leave smudges.

I'm totally going into a life of crime. Good luck catching me now, biatches!

(That's how it works, right? No fingerprints, they can't catch me?)
2013-06-28 01:38:37 PM  
1 votes:

Quantum Apostrophe: Next thing you know people who read sci-fi as kids think we can colonize space like it's a drive-in Wal Mart.


Don't worry, we'll always have sanctimonious douchebags that threadshiat anything that has to do with nascent technology so it balances out.  3d print yourself a short pier to take a long walk off of.
2013-06-28 01:31:13 PM  
1 votes:
When I was in jury selection for a murder trial, I actually felt kind of insulted that they kept referencing TV shows during the selection process. Not the other potential jurors, the attorneys. When they asked me what I considered to be "evidence" of wrong doing, I was pretty straight up with them: either a lot of eye witnesses with no relationship with the victims or accused OR scientific/forensic evidence that would leave no doubt as to who committed the crime, up to and including things like surveillance footage. I didn't care about semen stains or what was under the victim's nails, I cared about whether ANYONE could actually put a gun in the accused's hand. I'm not going to send someone to prison for life if there's ANY doubt in my mind, and that particular case left huge heaping piles of doubt in my mind.
2013-06-28 01:25:47 PM  
1 votes:

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.


But you can also call into question the evidence that you're not being presented when evaluating whether the state has proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Say your undercover cop witnessed 3 guys offering drugs - the swoop-in screwed up and they got away - later you recognized one of the guys.  If all you have is "I recognized the guy" your case is kind of thin. Show me drugs, show me the results of a search warrant - give me something other than "he said, she said" if you want me to deprive someone of his freedom.
2013-06-28 01:22:07 PM  
1 votes:
I covered several trials where the prosecutor asked potential jurors if the watch CSI, and if they did, made sure they understood that criminal investigation doesn't really work that way.
2013-06-28 01:19:55 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-06-28 01:08:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:35:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:34:32 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:30:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:29:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:26:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:23:46 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:05:26 PM  
1 votes:

basemetal: 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.

Ummmm, they don't want free thinkers.


CSB:

I once got bumped off a Jury because I was employed as tech support supervisor at the time, the guy on trial was accused of computer crimes, (the exact charges weren't told to the jury pool) the defense said my expertise would be biased in favor of the prosecution.

/CSB
2013-06-28 11:51:41 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-06-28 11:51:09 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-06-28 11:48:11 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:48:10 AM  
1 votes:
I can make a  GUI interface usingvisual basic totrack the killer's IP address if that will help.
2013-06-28 11:46:24 AM  
1 votes:
They'd have it if Torchwood would release it to the public.
2013-06-28 11:43:11 AM  
1 votes:
"This is the only security footage we got"
i.dailymail.co.uk

"That's ok, let me enhance"

www.abc.net.au

"GOT 'EM!"
2013-06-28 11:37:45 AM  
1 votes:

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.


Where do you want to go?

I'm fine with anything.

How about _______.

No, I don't like that place.
2013-06-28 10:45:44 AM  
1 votes:
4.bp.blogspot.com

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?
2013-06-28 09:42:43 AM  
1 votes:
Next thing you know is that doctors won't be able to tell testicular injury without watching Ow! My Balls first
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

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