Research Assessment #3

Date:​ September 21, 2018

Subject:​ Forensic pathology in U.S. crime programmes

MLA Citation:

Turow, Joseph. “‘The Answers Are Always in the Body’: Forensic Pathology in US Crime

Programmes.” ​Lancet​, vol. 364, Dec. 2004, pp. 54–55. ​EBSCOhost​,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=15403954&site=ehost-live.

Assessment:

Through most of my interviews, this idea of forensic in crime dramas has been referenced

at some point. This article takes a deeper look into forensic pathology as it is portrayed by these

crime shows and how this portrayal alters perceptions of the field. It briefly discusses the history

of these crime shows and the way their focus on pathologists specifically has developed over

time. The ultimate question of the article, though, was how these shows affect the field and the

way justice is carried out.

This information is something that is relevant to me as someone hoping to enter the field,

yes, but also as someone who once fell into these traps. Crime shows were the first things that

exposed me to forensic science. Though I’ve learned much more since then through my camp

and various other courses, I realize that many people still see forensics as I once did. This is not

entirely negative. This growing interest in forensics could help populate a workforce that is, at

the moment, very lacking, which is something I discussed in my first research assessment. This

could be a huge benefit to the field. However, the biggest effect to come out of these shows

seems to be what the public has become to expect of cases. They expect things like DNA and
 Steinheiser 2

believe they know what the procedures and standards of the field are. The reality is that these

things are not always so perfect. And even then, these shows glamorize forensic pathology. In

reality, the homicide cases pathologists receive are not as numerous as things like natural or

accidental death cases.

While the effects of these shows are mostly harmless, they can lead to huge barriers or

gaps in communication. If the public comes to expect something as a jury or in any other

capacity, they could make potentially damaging decisions when these cases are not packaged

perfectly like they are used to seeing on television. True errors can be made in the justice system.

They could acquit people who are actually guilty. On the other side, they could place too much

trust in forensic pathologists or other forensic scientists, which might lead to convictions being

made on bad science.

This information can be sorted as a potential shortcoming of the field due to popular

culture. The article really built my previous knowledge about this issue, especially as I have

taken a deeper look into forensic pathology through ISM. I knew that reliance on certain types of

evidence had been harmful to the justice system, but I had never thought about how the opposite

might also be true. Because of this, the article truly helped me gain a new perspective,

specifically regarding what my future role will be. I will have a lot of responsibilities, including

these homicide cases that eventually develop into trials. It will be important for me to keep

everything factual so that I can gain an objective view of what might have happened. This will

hopefully allow me to be a better forensic pathologist in the future.

While this new knowledge did not completely surprise me, certain parts definitely caused

me to think more about certain aspects of forensic pathology. I feel that it is important I learn
 Steinheiser 3

these things so that I can develop myself accordingly. Some of these effects are things that I

cannot change, but that only makes me want to work harder, to make sure that I do everything I

can on every case I will have as I continue on in my journey.

Steinheiser 4
Steinheiser 5