A friend of mine sent me this article from one of our local newspapers. The article implies that because so many people watch shows like CSI, they have come to expect the same level of gimmickery in real-life court rooms. Jurors expect to see computer recreations of crimes, to have fingerprint evidence and a computer graphic showing how the comparison was made, and DNA evidence as definitive proof of guilt.
While there may well be a handful of people out there who think the crime scene investigators do more than detectives in solving crimes, I think blaming it on the show is a bit simplistic. As the article points out, forensics (and specifically DNA evidence) has become the hammer of justice waved by prosecutors in many cases. It was what the O.J. prosecutors thought would clinch the case for them.
And there might be another reason people are looking for more scientific evidence in cases. Just a thought.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment