The CSI Effect

During the holidays I was asked by friends and family what exactly I wanted to do with a degree in chemistry. My standard reply is "Go to graduate school and become a forensic scientist." Every single time their reply was "Oh like on CSI!" Before this has never bothered me but after working in a forensic lab for 3 months and reading a lot of what an actual crime scene investigator does it's begun. NO! This is nothing like the shows have shown and here is why:

1. The time frame is completely thrown off. Yes, crimes are not solved in an hour with commercial breaks, TV time is not the same as real time. But even the time frame on a show, usually a shift, at a maximum of three days, crimes are not solved that fast. Obtaining all the evidence, let alone analyzing it takes at least a day. If a case is solved in a week, that's fast.

2. Personnel is highly misconstrued. No labs are actually run 24 hours a day, thus there is no need for a swing shift or a graveyard shift to come in every day. Secondly each department has more than one person running it at a time for quality assurance. So the fact that Greg Sanders was the "DNA Guy" doesn't hold up. Also, the crime scene investigators, the ones that actually process would never process a scene by themselves nor would the entire lab personnel of them go to one crime scene.

3. Trace evidence is one of the most overlooked of evidence... but also the most easy to lose... which includes footprints. Each crime scene has to be entered a special way NOT to destroy this evidence... which never happens on the show, they just walk right there.

4. My biggest grievance of what I've learned is the role of each CSI with each department in the lab and this brings me to my problem with people who study forensic science because they want to be a CSI like on the show. A Crime Scene Investigator is that and only that, at the crime scene they investigate. They will NEVER actually process evidence in the lab and the fact the Sarah Scidel is working on fingerprints is a grave problem. As well, they will never bring the evidence to a specific part of the lab, trace, tox, DNA, directly because that's where they want to bring it.It first goes to evidence check in then to DNA, then back to evidence check in then Trace, then the lab decides where it should go (fingerprints, tool markings, ballistics, tox, drug chemistry whatever) because once tests are conducted in trace, all DNA is wiped away. Once ballistics or fingerprinting is done, there will be no more trace evidence on that item. A gun is NEVER sent directly to ballistics.

My field will (hopefully) be forensic chemistry in which I would work in drug chemistry, toxicology, or trace. I don't think I'll get the training that the last person to cut my hair wondered..."do they teach you how to dramatically take off your sunglasses??"

A new blog, a new purpose

To introduce my new blog I would first like to give credit where credit is deserved. After reading Ben Halladay's more than entertaining blog over the past few months I only hope my new blog is as entertaining as his. Thank you Ben for giving me a slightly new purpose in life.

My purpose is much different now than from my live journal. Here I will be documenting all that is my life of forensics, or my search of a life in forensics. Currently I will be graduating with a Bachelor of Science in chemistry with a minor in forensic science from Syracuse University. Thus my blog title of CSI:Orange makes a bit more sense. I could not put an actual city to it since I don't know where I'll end up. I am currently waiting acceptance to either George Washington University in D.C. or Pace University in New York City to get a Masters of Forensic Science (MFS). After that it's looking for a job where I haven't wasted six years of my life.

Don't worry all you Phil O'Dendrin campaigners! I will still post to my live journal from time to time when I need to vent about things in a more immature way.

Thank you and have a good night.