Summary: The Real CSI

579 Words3 Pages
My thoughts
Forensic science is used everywhere. It can be used to arrest and convict someone of a crime. Before watching The Real CSI video, I thought using fingerprints and DNA will get you 100% accurate results. Throughout the video my thoughts about the subject began to change.
In the beginning of the video they claimed that fingerprint identification is infallible, that you’ll be one hundred percent certain with a zero percent chance you’ll be wrong. That was not the case with the Brandon Mayfield case. In the year of 2004, there was a series of explosions in a Madrid subway. It killed and injured nearly two thousand people. After the explosions they found partial fingerprints in a plastic bag that contained the detonators. The examiners analyzed the prints, ran them through the system, and linked them to an attorney in Portland, Oregon named Brandon Mayfield. He claimed he was not a terrorist, that
…show more content…
He claimed he was working at a bar filled with customers when the crime was committed. With all of his alibies, he was still charged with a crime he didn’t commit all because they found bite marks on the little girl’s wrist that seemed to match up with him. He was later released from prison when the true murdered was caught.
Is DNA a reliable forensic tool?
I feel that DNA is the only reliable forensic tool because its principles are example of real science. Mentioned in the video, forensic science was developed by law enforcement, but DNA analysis was developed by medical science. A much more reliable source. There may be certain situations where DNA isn’t the best tool to go off of. Like for example if there isn’t an enough quantity of it at the scene of a crime or if it has been mixed with someone else’s (Kaye and Sensabaugh, 2000).
What about

More about Summary: The Real CSI

Open Document