The Courts, the NAS, and the Future of Forensic Science
2010; Routledge; Volume: 75; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
0007-2362
Autores Tópico(s)Jury Decision Making Processes
ResumoOn a recent flight, the person next to me on the crowded airplane began to chat with me. When I told her about what I researched and studied, she looked at me with a big grin. “I LOVE forensic science,” she said. “I watch CSI whenever I can. They can do such amazing things. It’s all so high tech—and incredibly accurate! It’s almost like magic, isn’t it?” She leaned in a bit closer and looked at me intently. “Tell me, is it like that in real life?” I looked at her for a moment before answering. I felt a bit like the older child on the playground about to reveal to her younger friend that Santa Clause doesn’t really exist. I shook my head. “No, I wouldn’t say that CSI’s depiction is entirely realistic. In the real world, forensic science isn’t nearly so glossy. It isn’t nearly so speedy. And most important, it isn’t nearly so foolproof, either.” “Really? That’s too bad,” she told me. She looked at me directly for a brief moment, shook her head, and then looked away. “Well, to tell you the truth, I think I’d rather just keep believing in the television version.” Figuring that reality was not going to be any match for CSI, I shrugged, and went back to the book I was reading. In fact, that casual exchange on an airplane captures something quite important about the traditional forensic sciences, which find themselves at a crossroads. For many longused types of forensic science, including fingerprint identification, firearms identification, handwriting
Referência(s)