Crime scene investigation is an important area of the criminal justice field. The CSI groups are expected to find and collect evidence at crime scenes. They are to follow the guidelines of collecting the evidence and packaging it properly. The proper packaging is to ensure that the evidence stays fresh and does not get contaminated. They then ensure that the evidence is delivered at the proper analyzation and examination teams to further review the evidence. Once the evidence is reviewed and properly understood then the investigators continue with this information to obtain a warrant, capture a suspect, or use the evidence in court.
In the television shows these types of processes are conducted thoroughly and quickly in order to fulfill the time slot on that channel. Those crime shows are not realistic in the real world of crime and investigation. The real life CSI is not perfect and takes much longer that it would on television shows. There are mistakes that can occur during CSI and it can have a huge impact on the outcome of the case. Unlike television, there is no perfect CSI case and it is not possible for everything to come together smoothly and within the first few hours.
Mistakes are made every day in crime scene investigations. These mistakes can be on anyone watch and can happen at the most unsuspected times. The police officers can make mistakes during search and seizure or apprehension. Detectives can make mistakes in determining they have caught the correct suspect. Or lawyers could make mistakes in the middle of a trial. Evidence can get overlooked or not handled in the chain of command correctly and witnesses may become murdered. Things happen in the real life of CSI and it is not the same as everyday television shows. These common mistakes that occur in the legal field can cause permanent harm to the group who are involved in the case. “The problems that can arise during the process of a case may keep a guilty man on the streets or an innocent man go to prison” . These mistakes do not need to happen in the real CSI world.
A video that displays the evidence misconception that had occurred. The first area of examination involves fingerprinting. It is believed that no one person has the same fingerprints in the world. There is always something different with each fingerprint that is examined. In one case this is not true The examination and comparison of fingerprints are conducted by the professional human eye. There is no machine that compares the fingerprints. “The print can be uploaded into the computer for AFIS for a comparison match” . Then it is up to the examiner to compare the fingerprints to see if they are the same person. Until recently this has always worked and there were not a fingerprint that was found to be the same as another individual.
An explosion had occurred in a foreign country. There were partial fingerprints that were lifted off of the bags of power used in the explosion. The fingerprint was in ported in the system of that country and there was no match. The fingerprint was sent to the FBI and it was analyzed and compared by three professionals in the FBI. All three of the examiners concluded that the print belongs to an individual who was of Muslim descent. He was taken into custody and confessed his innocents in the explosion.
The fingerprint was sent to an independent fingerprint examiner who had analyzed thousands of prints over the years. He examined the print with his eyes and the 15-point system used in this process. He concluded that the fingerprints were a complete and definite match. A few weeks later the fingerprint was a match of a foreigner. The man the FBI thought was the match was not the suspect. This is the first time that two fingerprints had been declared the same print by the human eye and examination of the guidelines.
Another example of human error in regards to the crime scene is bit marks. Investigators who examine bite marks are not always correct in determining who the bite mark came from. Many people who were convicted to life sentencing or death row was based on bite marks. The dental forensics professionals were to blame for these wrong findings. Many of the people were later released because the real criminal was actually apprehended in the future. The dental forensics have been proven time and time again that it is not 100% full proof. The cause of this is due to innocent people being sent to prison who were not actually guilty of a crime. Even though there were numerous professional examiners who concluded the findings to be true, they were wrong.
DNA is another area of evidence testing and examining that can have errors or false positives. DNA testing has been a substantial form of evidence in criminal cases. There have been times that the DNA was not properly examined and innocent people have gone to prison. There have been situations that guilty people have been found not guilty because of misinterpretation of evidence.
In the Casey Anthony case, there were evidence experts allowed to testify about air quality. The decomposition smell in her trunk was examined and the expert testified that he certain the death smell was of decomposition. This type of expert testimony had never been given the option to testify of decomposition smells of air. It was allowed in her trial to help determine that there was indeed a dead body in the trunk of Casey’s car. This type of expert testimony is supposed to meet the expert guidelines before the testimony to prove the validity of the expert’s words.
There have been many criminal cases involving forensic evidence and testimony, but not all of the professional witnesses have proven to be sufficient. These types of experts can be wrong and when they are not accurate it could cause a case to go south and people to be innocently accused of a crime. The expert is the one who is proving that the evidence is viable and accurate but in some scenarios they are wrong. The real CSI field from crime assessment, crime examination, and crime evidence in court can make mistakes along the way.
Reference
PBS (Director). (2012). The Real CSI [Motion Picture].
