Odd space to see a social retrospective, but ESPN.com's Bill Simmons has a column about the O.J. Simpson trial, 10 years later. I would consider this just a sensationalist look back except for this portion:
If the trial happened in 2004 instead of 1995, Simpson and his gravity-defying noggin probably would be rotting away in prison right now. He couldn't have survived the overwhelming DNA evidence. Thanks to the startling popularity of "CSI" and "CSI: Miami," forensic science doesn't seem nearly as complicated today as it did in the mid-'90s, when doctors wasted entire days of the trial simply explaining the basics of DNA evidence to the jurors. Of course, those efforts were completely wasted, as evidenced by the words of one juror after the trial:
"I didn't understand the DNA stuff at all. To me, it was just a waste of time. It was way out there and carried no weight with me."
...
But this was 10 years ago. Only educated people understood the ramifications of the DNA evidence ... and educated people have a way of being bounced off juries."
I remember at the time being startled that one would think of taking so long to explain DNA evidence and its reliability. But then, even as an undergraduate, I was clearly an educated person. It stunned me that when someone testified, under oath, that there was a 1-in-a-very-large number chance of the blood not being the defendant's, that they could just dismiss this out of hand.
Are juries more educated these days, do you think? Could CSI and the Discovery Channel and A&E actually be mainstreaming scientific police work?
Amazingly, CNN stills seems to have an archive up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Working for the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association (guess who I am again!), I actually have information straight from the prosecutors' mouths regarding the impact of CSI and such. We do a DNA Evidence seminar every year, and the view is that it is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it is EXCELLENT that people understand DNA a little better, and at LEAST they don't think it is junk science. On the other hand, CSI is very unrealistic about a lot of the science in practice, and people come in with a lot of misconceptions that can throw a monkey-wrench into your argument. For example, people expect that you can just shoot off a sample to the DNA lab, and within an hour you've got your results and are on your way! But it just isn't that simple, and a lot of DNA labs are backed up with requests. Sometimes the results are not cut and dry. It gets really complicated. In any case, from a prosecution standpoint, CSI is a hell of a lot more useful to them than most of the court dramas. They HATE shows like "The Practice," and even use clips from them to show prosecutors what NOT to do. Regardless, I think most prosecutors would say that the impact of shows like CSI is overrated.
That said, prosecutors don't deny that O.J. changed everything. He still comes up at least once almost every seminar we do. Thought I'd mention that while I was at it.
Also, one other thing that has helped a lot is that DNA science is more simple and easier to understand because it is so computerized compared to what it used to be. Every year they make it easier and easier to use and explain.
Ok. I'm done.
NPR juwst ran a segment on CSI and its effects on forensic science. As Mr. FL said it seems to be a doubled edged sword. However, I personally believe that the swoord cuts more in the favor of science. I do believe that science is being introduced through the TV, but is this new? Where did you first hear about finger prints, retinal scans, and voice activated things? Mostlikely some science fiction show, and as these procedures became more common they left the sci-fi arena to the general market. Of course they are dumbed down and made into a hollywood prop, but then lets think about what they do to classic, or not so classic, literature.
On an aside, does this mean that I can act intelegent and get off of my jury duty?
Cheers
Brad
You can get off your jury duty by just picking an attorney and being totally biased toward his point of view. The other attorney will almost always strike you if you are one-sided enough.
Then again, you'd be failing to do your duty as a citizen. ;-)
If you want to get out of jury duty, just say that you think the Bible is the absolute basis of all law and that stoning should be brought back.
Unless you're in Alabama you should be on your way.
Don in DE
As a scientist in the Biotech industry my comments count for almost nothing. However, I would suggest that DNA science and biotechnology have become much more visible since 1995. DNA medicine is more comonly talked about (think about stem cells) and are other health topics related to DNA. Sally and I have a friend who is pregnant and she has seen several adds for storage of "cord blood". This blood contains stem cells that could be used to treat disease in babies. I took a look at the brochure and it is pretty vague, so of course my friend is doing research and getting a feel for the science behind it. I think this is an example of how Moleclar Biology is more prevelant in many peoples lives.
Don in DE
I think having the Ph.D. will keep you off of jury duty no matter what you try to do to stay on. One of my fellow grad students here once related being stricken the moment he mentioned he was an undergrad majoring in Physics/Math. In most cases at least one attorney is not going to want anyone with a hint of logical ability on the jury.
Different cases warrant different jurors.
Post a Comment