In the article “CSI and moral authority: The police and science,” Caverder and Deutsch explain how “CSI” is one of the top 10 television programs. The focus is on how the CSI show uses images and the cultural meaning of the crime to play into police and science investigations. The argument of this article is whether science should or should not play a role in closing a case. The article explains how some of the CSI scenes are not valid, because CSI uses forensic science to make viewers think sciences can prove who committed the crime. They also state that sometimes some scenes are too fictional and put irony into viewers to question authority of the police investigation. In the article they point out there is not much accuracy in the scientific procedures but CSI presents them as accurate. The article states that CSI projects images that all case are solvable by highly technical science. I disagree with the article because science should be put in consideration when crimes are committed. In some cases forensic science is necessary to solve crimes but should not be taken out of proportion.
In the CIS show, which was my first CSI experience, I saw how much technology was used in the show. All of the evidences were taken to the forensic lab. The forensic team had to use many techniques to show what had occurred at the time of the crime. The message the CSI show sends out is that the criminal does leave a trace. I can see why the article states that the forensic team tends to take a larger part in the show to make the viewer think science is what solves the crime. The show ignores the police investigation in favor of the science. Just as Cavender and Deutsch state, CSI ignores the human side. The police drama series in television can make the viewers think they know the whole system without knowing the real system.
Conviction was a film based on a true story. The two main characters were brothers who shared many life experiences. However, through time they developed their own lives with their own families and work. After 30-year pass by Betty’s (sisters of Kenny) Kenny gets convicted for a murder he didn’t commit. He was sentenced for life Betty knows her brother didn’t commit the crime. She goes to law school and becomes a lawyer to defend her brother. When she was in school she found out about case someone was convicted wrongly for a murder. From that case Betty applies the same case to her brother so they can do a DNA test to prove his innocence. Eventually, they do prove his innocence and he was released from the murder charge. I see how science does apply here because if there weren’t any test, an innocent person would have been convicted. I believe there should be a balance between science and policing investigation. Like Cavender and Deutsch state CSI ignores the human investigation, in this case they ignored the science investigation.
Hi Angela,
ReplyDeleteOverall, you're meeting the requirements of the assignment. One area to work on, however, is summarizing the main argument of the readings. At times you don't seem to be getting at the main point that the author is making or will oversimplify the point in your discussion. Also, when discussing the examples from outside of the class, you could work on explaining how it relates to the course a bit more. Overall, though, you're on the right track.
In terms of a letter grade, I would put this work in the mid-to-high "B" range. Let me know if you have questions.