Mine, too. Everyone's like "Oh, that's so lame," but everyone needs an inspiration. *shrugs* I'm planning on becoming a forensic scientist, but I want to work in the lab. I have a feeling I'd have a major problem with getting attached to victims and their families. For me, the less contact, the better.
I went to the RCMP station in town, and I'm learning about the whole thing with this CSI course. *frowns* Quite different that what you'd expect.
I'm thinking about calling our local police station and asking them if I can stay one day in the lab or something, that'd be really cool!
Most police agencies have "shadowing" or "ride-along" programs set up for just such a situation. As you get into college I also HIGHLY recommend interships/volunteering to set yourself apart from the many applicants labs get for every "entry level" position that opens up.
My uncle works as a CSI for the Cocoa Police Department in Florida. And he has shown me some of the pictures (of evidence, etc.) from some of the smaller crime scenes. It is so cool. And he's gotten me all kinds of stuff that's real too! I have tape lifts, fingerprint powder, gloves, the dusting brush, and a lot more.
I think we can all agree that shows like CSI aren't completely acurate as far as 'crime scene investigating' goes. Their main element is entertainment, and they've taken quite a few liberties to make the show interesting. They do however have actual 'CSIs' that are the technical advisors of the show (How to hold certain things, how to collect things, how to pronounce certain words) Of course, you already know that. But does kind of frustrate me when I meet with people who are actual detectives, or even people who've processed crime scenes, and I tell them I'm interested in the field and they tell me that it's nothing like the show. That's not the reason I want to be a CSI. :lol: I was already interested in the profession before CSI started, and the show interested me because of my interest in forensic science. Besides, people learn very quickly what the job is about, and it's not always about playing with cool toys in this huge expensive lab. I do respect and admire what the detectives and crime scene investigators have to put up with in terms of people who have no idea what actually goes on in a murder investigation. However, shows like CSI have interested more people in the field, and the show has made the public aware of what these people do and their devotion to finding criminals.
The shows making the public aware of forensics is one thing. People in the jury box expecting real scientists to have available the tools and resources they see on TV is something else. The so called "CSI-effect" has had a very negative impact on the field. Why did the jury let the guy off? Well when polled the jury said they didn't understand why the lab didn't do a DNA analysis on the handgun removed from the suspects waistband by police. Just because something CAN be done, does not mean that it SHOULD or MUST be done. It's a matter of limited resources. Most labs are publically funded, and if each laboratory in the country was expected to function with the speed and efficiency of TV crime labs, everyone in the country would need a second job just to pay taxes to fund forensics labs. Crime labs have to prioritize what gets done. Individual cases have to have all it's elements looked at, and apply the best science to the best evidence - not every scientific test to every piece of evidence collected in a 5 mile radius to the scene of the crime.
I agree with you Forensics_Guy. The CSI-effect has had a negative impact on how jurys interpret the evidence that has been presented and the testimony given. People expect too much just because of something they saw on tv, and in reality that expectation is just too high. But even so, the CSI-effect has had a positive impact because now a lot of people do understand the evidence that is being presented more than they did say, 20 years ago. But hey there's a lot of debate on whether the CSI-effect is actually hindering the jury's ability to say who's guilty and who isn't, or if it's helping the jury understand the forensic in question that will explain the crime in context.
I agree with you there. In the jurisdiction that I testify in the jury is allowed to ask questions after both sides have asked their questions of the witness. In the last 4 - 5 years the jury is asking much more intelligent questions that shows a general understanding of the science behind the analysis - compared to the lawyers in some cases.
I actually was in court the other day going thorugh some evidence found a few fibres and hairs, i was saying like this was found on the Vic but didn't belong to the vic, then i said something quiet scientific and i was asked to rephrase what i had said because the jury didn't no what i meant and when i got out the stand my boss said way to go you got them confused then they had no idea what you said, then he turned around and said, i could have thought of something more technical, which made me laugh, jeesh i thought atleast they would have a clever jury for a homocide when thy knew there would be Forensics and that lot there.
I have a friend who has contacts in the Santa Rosa Police Department and she's going to ask them for me if there any classes in forensics available to study.