Forensic science used in criminal trials can be surprisingly unscientific. Maybe a new television procedural could help change the public perception.
Everyone just going to gloss over that Poussay out here solving crimes and not actually dead?!
The thought of being at the mercy of the scientific literacy of 12 average Americans is truly terifying.
That Olsen Twin joke knocked me off
Jeff Sessions being an authoritarian snake _again?!_
I’m shocked! /s
Yeah it always annoys me when the CSI show people carry guns and investigate cases!!
I went back to Google Chrome two days ago. I forgot I had that “Make Donald Drumpf again” thing that replaces the word “Trump” by “Drumpf”. I haven’t stopped laughing since.
Ah, trill has a definition dude. Trill- a musical ornament consisting of a rapid alternation between two adjacent notes, usually a semitone or tone apart.
Cumberbatch’s Sherlock would be miffed after seeing this. Hahaha
Yep this is definitely an issue. Its why the various forensic disciplines the last decade have been putting effort into reexamining a lot of the older techniques. There was even a supreme court case (Daubert vs Dow Pharmaceuticals) in 1993 about this issue but sadly it appears the courts are slow to adapt.
law and order is a sci fi show
I like how john oliver and adam conover cover the same overall story
Kind of just brushed over it, since it wasn’t the real focus, but I’ve come to believe that the practice of using Legal Precedent so commonly in our justice system is, itself, a major mistake. It’s not that I don’t understand why it’s used, but I do think it’s something that should be less sacrosanct and merely a consideration. A past judgement that was made due to poor evidence, arguments, or flawed logic shouldn’t be shaping future legal decisions.
What might be _clever_ is if there were a judicial council of sorts — something similar to congress — which would review legal precedents (perhaps after a few years from their initial creation, to give them some time in the wild) and decide whether or not the precedent should be formalized into … let’s call it a Judicial Code. Until that point the precedent is really no more than “that’s how this other dude in a robe handled it”. Also, those Judicial Codes would need a system of revision if called upon by a majority of US citizens… maybe a significant enough petition could place a code up for voting on a national or state ballot as appropriate. Of course, there’s a question of how much weight the Judicial Code would carry — would a judge _have_ to abide by it, what would the consequences be and what would be an acceptable reason to stray from it?
—– P.S. Since the conclusion of this segment is, more or less, that there is no perfect evidence… and seeing as we have the whole “innocent until proven guilty beyond a *shadow of a doubt”* guideline… might this mean that no one should ever be found guilty? Because there’s always a _shadow_ of a doubt… I mean, if you start digging into it you discover that we can’t even trust the validity of our own memories.
I would watch that show.
Better, I would produced it if I had the money.
I just want longer episodes back…
I thought a “trill” was a fluttering sound made by the mouth on an instrument with a fixed mouthpiece or mechanically by depressing and releasing a key on others… hrmmm
I love this show but the joke at 3:09 was so unnecessary.
All jokes aside, can we PLEASE make Crime Scene Idiot an actual show?
And you forgot to mention, CSI is so stupid, the writers have to fix the story-lines regularly with ex machinas… And for F+cks sake, where do they get DNA tests made in hours and not SEVERAL DAYS?
Crime drama are really cringe-worthy cus of the weird ass visuals they use cus their audience are too stupid to understand words otherwise. (Much salt.)
as a sociologist, the fact that all studies, even the ones produced in natural sciences, is constructed, is nothing new. even if you can put something into numbers and scales it doesn’t mean there’s no way it could be wrong. nothing is 100% safe. I can’t wrap my head around why people (especially in the western world) are so faithful in numbers. I guess it’s just cause most people are intimidated by them. at the end of the day, it’s still humans intepreting the numbers, and humans are flawed, subjective and emotionally driven. also: most scientific studie’s design is highly controversial. most of them are set up to prove a hypothesis, which undermines the falsification principle, which means: they’re follow the same logic a conspiracy theory would. as a scientist you must always prove you’re unlikely to be wrong. never, that you’re likely to be right. there is a fundamental difference between the two.
Your email address will not be published.
© Late Night TV website by Super Blog Me