sidlewannabee
CSI Level One
Re: Forensic Questions
I have a question, what types of Forensics are there?
I have a question, what types of Forensics are there?
Forensics Questions
- Thread starter Alyssa
- Start date
steph_r
Witness
sidlewannabee
CSI Level One
Re: Forensic Questions
Thank you guys, that helps a lot.
Thank you guys, that helps a lot.
Re: Forensic Questions
oh, if you're interested in firearms identification, go visit www.firearmsid.com ...
oh, if you're interested in firearms identification, go visit www.firearmsid.com ...
KenGoddard
Hit and Run
Re: fibers/ washing the mouth
First of all, I hope that everyone who wanders around this site understands that while the the portrayals of the characters/jobs on the CSI Las Vegas, Miami & NY shows are highly entertaining (and informative in terms of the technologies), they have very little to do with reality. As portrayed, the characters are variations of a combined sworn/armed detective, forensic scientist and crime scene investigator ... a combination that rarely exists (if it exists at all) these days.
The reason:
Crime scene investigators (typically non-sworn and non-armed individuals with 2-year college or technical degrees) respond to the crime scenes and focus their efforts on the job of evaluating the scene and preserving/collecting the evidence. On a typical shift, a CSI may work 1 (or at the most 2) "complex" scene(s) ... or several non-complex scenes such as burglaries and assaults, one after the other. Their involvement with the evidence typically ends when they drop the evidence off at (or, in the case of national law enforcement CSIs who may be working a long distance away from their lab, mail it to) the crime lab. They are typically not forensic scientists and they do not engage with the suspects except to collect clothing, hair or fingernail scrapings ... usually at the jail.
Forensic scientists (typically non-sworn, non-armed, and possessing at least a 4-year bachelors degree in forensic science or a related science such as genetics or chemistry) rarely respond to crime scenes these days. The reason being that virtually all of the crime labs I'm aware of (national & international) have huge backlogs of evidence/cases that need forensic examinations. Some law enforcement agencies will send a forensic scientist out to a complex crime scene to assist the CSIs with complicated evidence or a difficult-to-work scene, but the trend (in terms of efficiency) is to keep the forensic scientists in the lab working on the backlog of evidence. New forensic scientists will typically spend several years working routine evidence of a specialized nature (ie: narcotics & blood alcohols) before they are allowed to move up to more complicated analysis.
Important note: the backlog usually means that the evidence collected at a routine or even a complex crime scene is not examined for several days or weeks or even months after the evidence was collected. While it would be wonderful for the detectives and CSIs to be actively engaged with forensic scientists working their evidence in a 'real time' (while the crime scene is being investigated, as occurs on the TV shows), that rarely --- if ever --- happens in real life.
And, as you might expect, the detectives are sworn/armed law enforcement investigators who may have taken some basic CSI and forensic courses in college; but their job is to evaluate the crime scene, witness statements and evidence examination results (usually several weeks after the crime occurred), and then use that information --- in addition to their own knowledge of the local criminal population --- to hunt down and confront the bad guy ... and then use the collected and examined evidence to bring him/her before the courts.
So, in essence, if you're drawn to 'CSI' as a career because of the shows, you'll need to decide at some point what job you're really interested in: an unarmed crime scene investigator who spends most of his/her time at (mostly routine) scenes on hands and knees preserving and collecting evidence; or an unarmed forensic scientist who spends almost all of his/her time in a lab examining (mostly routine) evidence and having little or no knowledge of the crime scene; or an armed detective who confronts the (often armed) bad guys on a routine basis ... but rarely (if ever) handles evidence.
Oh, and I almost forgot: while some of the CSIs may be beautiful/handsome in their off-duty 'civies', everybody looks looks pretty much the same on the job in their mandated 'baggy coverall' uniforms.
All said, I don't want to ruin anyone's fun in fantasizing themselves as a TV CSI ... but I also don't want people to make the mistake of directing their educational efforts toward a TV-CSI job and then ultimately end up being terribly disappointed and/or disillusioned by the realities of the job.
I've received numerous e-mails over the past few months directly related to this question; so I thought I'd share my take on the issue from the perspective of having spent the past 39 years as a forensic scientist, CSI, CSI trainer, and crime lab director:
First of all, I hope that everyone who wanders around this site understands that while the the portrayals of the characters/jobs on the CSI Las Vegas, Miami & NY shows are highly entertaining (and informative in terms of the technologies), they have very little to do with reality. As portrayed, the characters are variations of a combined sworn/armed detective, forensic scientist and crime scene investigator ... a combination that rarely exists (if it exists at all) these days.
The reason:
Crime scene investigators (typically non-sworn and non-armed individuals with 2-year college or technical degrees) respond to the crime scenes and focus their efforts on the job of evaluating the scene and preserving/collecting the evidence. On a typical shift, a CSI may work 1 (or at the most 2) "complex" scene(s) ... or several non-complex scenes such as burglaries and assaults, one after the other. Their involvement with the evidence typically ends when they drop the evidence off at (or, in the case of national law enforcement CSIs who may be working a long distance away from their lab, mail it to) the crime lab. They are typically not forensic scientists and they do not engage with the suspects except to collect clothing, hair or fingernail scrapings ... usually at the jail.
Forensic scientists (typically non-sworn, non-armed, and possessing at least a 4-year bachelors degree in forensic science or a related science such as genetics or chemistry) rarely respond to crime scenes these days. The reason being that virtually all of the crime labs I'm aware of (national & international) have huge backlogs of evidence/cases that need forensic examinations. Some law enforcement agencies will send a forensic scientist out to a complex crime scene to assist the CSIs with complicated evidence or a difficult-to-work scene, but the trend (in terms of efficiency) is to keep the forensic scientists in the lab working on the backlog of evidence. New forensic scientists will typically spend several years working routine evidence of a specialized nature (ie: narcotics & blood alcohols) before they are allowed to move up to more complicated analysis.
Important note: the backlog usually means that the evidence collected at a routine or even a complex crime scene is not examined for several days or weeks or even months after the evidence was collected. While it would be wonderful for the detectives and CSIs to be actively engaged with forensic scientists working their evidence in a 'real time' (while the crime scene is being investigated, as occurs on the TV shows), that rarely --- if ever --- happens in real life.
And, as you might expect, the detectives are sworn/armed law enforcement investigators who may have taken some basic CSI and forensic courses in college; but their job is to evaluate the crime scene, witness statements and evidence examination results (usually several weeks after the crime occurred), and then use that information --- in addition to their own knowledge of the local criminal population --- to hunt down and confront the bad guy ... and then use the collected and examined evidence to bring him/her before the courts.
So, in essence, if you're drawn to 'CSI' as a career because of the shows, you'll need to decide at some point what job you're really interested in: an unarmed crime scene investigator who spends most of his/her time at (mostly routine) scenes on hands and knees preserving and collecting evidence; or an unarmed forensic scientist who spends almost all of his/her time in a lab examining (mostly routine) evidence and having little or no knowledge of the crime scene; or an armed detective who confronts the (often armed) bad guys on a routine basis ... but rarely (if ever) handles evidence.
Oh, and I almost forgot: while some of the CSIs may be beautiful/handsome in their off-duty 'civies', everybody looks looks pretty much the same on the job in their mandated 'baggy coverall' uniforms.
All said, I don't want to ruin anyone's fun in fantasizing themselves as a TV CSI ... but I also don't want people to make the mistake of directing their educational efforts toward a TV-CSI job and then ultimately end up being terribly disappointed and/or disillusioned by the realities of the job.
Re: fibers/ washing the mouth
Gee... don't sound so depressing ... you're gonna make eveyone run away!!! But it's true that it's not at all like the show.
I just wanted to add to what you said : it also depends a lot on the country ... and also on the size of the city you're in ( if it has its own lab or not ...)
Gee... don't sound so depressing ... you're gonna make eveyone run away!!! But it's true that it's not at all like the show.
I just wanted to add to what you said : it also depends a lot on the country ... and also on the size of the city you're in ( if it has its own lab or not ...)
Re: fibers/ washing the mouth
where I live in England (it's the biggest police force outside city forces), the analysis are done in the lab which means that it tends to be possible to follow an investigation quite easily, even though you don't take part in it any more. But a lot of technicians also process evidence from smaller units that don't have labe facilities ...
where I live in England (it's the biggest police force outside city forces), the analysis are done in the lab which means that it tends to be possible to follow an investigation quite easily, even though you don't take part in it any more. But a lot of technicians also process evidence from smaller units that don't have labe facilities ...
KenGoddard
Hit and Run
Re: fibers/ washing the mouth
That said, I really do hope the TV shows and this web site encourage more students to enter the fields of CSI, forensics and law enforcement. Looking back, I feel like I've made good use of my professional life [I'm not done yet!! Still a lot of work to be done on the international coral reef CSI project], and I'd like to think that others in the field would feel the same way.
I also have to confess that it's fun to fantasize myself as Grissom, having all the resources and time and personnel to engage with a single case and resolve it on one shift; but I really have to work hard at suspending my disbelief.
Absolutely true. There's a huge variation amongst the international community in the way they approach crime scene investigations, forensic examinations of evidence, and presentation in court (I'm intermittently involved with Interpol, and get to see a lot of these variations first-hand). Most of the variations are 'practical' (based on very limited resources); but every now and then we do issue a verbal report on our examination result to an investigator from another country that has what we might call a "more aggressive attitude" attitude toward law enforcement; and, in doing so, hope that we don't hear the sound of a firing squad in the background.
That said, I really do hope the TV shows and this web site encourage more students to enter the fields of CSI, forensics and law enforcement. Looking back, I feel like I've made good use of my professional life [I'm not done yet!! Still a lot of work to be done on the international coral reef CSI project], and I'd like to think that others in the field would feel the same way.
I also have to confess that it's fun to fantasize myself as Grissom, having all the resources and time and personnel to engage with a single case and resolve it on one shift; but I really have to work hard at suspending my disbelief.
Re: fibers/ washing the mouth
Well, maybe in a not-so-distant future, you'll get (ok, maybe not all) but a lot more resources. I mean, people are getting very interested in forensics (all the shows, the "real CSIs" shows ...) mean that forensics is getting a lot more publicity, and since the shows make it look as if it can solve anything, people are going to believe in it more, and therefore, we might get some more funding ...
Well, maybe in a not-so-distant future, you'll get (ok, maybe not all) but a lot more resources. I mean, people are getting very interested in forensics (all the shows, the "real CSIs" shows ...) mean that forensics is getting a lot more publicity, and since the shows make it look as if it can solve anything, people are going to believe in it more, and therefore, we might get some more funding ...
KenGoddard
Hit and Run
Re: the future of CSI
Side note: in our agency (US Fish & Wildlife Service Law Enforcement), we have long realized that 1) we can't afford enough armed/sworn special agents to properly do the job of protecting threatened/endangered species throughout our country; and 2) special agents, with their extensive (and expensive) training in tracking down and confronting a suspect, aren't necessarily the best people to be working the crime scenes on their hands and knees, documenting the scenes, and collecting the evidence. So our plan is to create a group of evidence technicians (essentially non-sworn and non-armed CSIs) who would work with our special agents out in the field in paired teams to conduct CSI, collect evidence, seize computers (utilizing the proper protocols that prove not a single byte of data has been added or subtracted from the hard drive), and send everything to our crime lab where the evidence would be analyzed. Not exactly TV-CSI; there are unresolved issues on how the unarmed technicians will remain safe at scenes if things start to "turn bad"; and the dress-code will definitely be "less flashy" (no clevage or 'manly-chests' exposed .. we're a pretty 'conservative' agency); but its a start.
I think (hope) you're right. And, if nothing else, the TV CSI shows have certainly educated the public as a whole (and juries in particular) as to what should/could be done with evidence at a crime scene. As for myself, I would happily settle for the idea that suspects are never convicted of major crimes based only on eye-witness testimony. If we can get that far (especially in the US where execution is still utilized as a penalty), I think we will have accomplished something tremendously significant for our judicial systems.
Side note: in our agency (US Fish & Wildlife Service Law Enforcement), we have long realized that 1) we can't afford enough armed/sworn special agents to properly do the job of protecting threatened/endangered species throughout our country; and 2) special agents, with their extensive (and expensive) training in tracking down and confronting a suspect, aren't necessarily the best people to be working the crime scenes on their hands and knees, documenting the scenes, and collecting the evidence. So our plan is to create a group of evidence technicians (essentially non-sworn and non-armed CSIs) who would work with our special agents out in the field in paired teams to conduct CSI, collect evidence, seize computers (utilizing the proper protocols that prove not a single byte of data has been added or subtracted from the hard drive), and send everything to our crime lab where the evidence would be analyzed. Not exactly TV-CSI; there are unresolved issues on how the unarmed technicians will remain safe at scenes if things start to "turn bad"; and the dress-code will definitely be "less flashy" (no clevage or 'manly-chests' exposed .. we're a pretty 'conservative' agency); but its a start.
Re: the future of CSI
In France, you are three different things a "CSI", who processes evidence (dusts prints , ....), a techinician who analyses everything, and an engineer, who supervises all that. They're all sworn officers ( in the sens that they get a flashy badge) but they can't wear guns ... or arrest suspects. So I guess that the only thing they really have in common with the TV CSIs is that they both get a shiny badge ...
In France, you are three different things a "CSI", who processes evidence (dusts prints , ....), a techinician who analyses everything, and an engineer, who supervises all that. They're all sworn officers ( in the sens that they get a flashy badge) but they can't wear guns ... or arrest suspects. So I guess that the only thing they really have in common with the TV CSIs is that they both get a shiny badge ...