Why "Forensic Science" is OxyMoronic:

The Fallacy of “Forensic Science”

Television programs such as (but not limited to) “CSI,” “Law and Order,” “NCIS,” “Cold Case,” “Without a Trace,” “Crossing Jordan,” “Bones,” and “Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law” would seem to have redefined the meaning of the word “forensics.” These contrived entertainments glorify the fictitious profession of “Forensic Scientists.”

Forensics, however, is not a science.

Forensics is the semantic element of a debate or argument. Certainly scientists are involved in the gathering and examination of evidence in investigations running the gamut from the intellectual conjecture of physical anthropology to the solving of crimes old and new, but what those scientists do is not forensics; forensics is what lawyers do with the evidence once they get it into a courtroom – and that goes for the lawyers on both the prosecutive and defensive sides of the argument!

Why, then, are television writers, producers, and actors attempting to alter the TeeVee watching public’s perception of forensics?

As any good debater knows, it is elemental to any argument to define one’s terms from the outset. Therefore, the term “forensic” is defined as follows, first by Merriam Webster's Colligiate Dictionary (Tenth Edition):

^“1forensic \fə-’ren(t)-sik, ’ren-zik \ adj [L forensis public, forensic, fr. Forum forum] (1659) 1 : belonging to, used in, or suitable to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate. 2 : ARGUMENTATIVE, RHETORICAL 3 : relating to or dealing with the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems <~medicine> <~science> <~pathologist> <~experts> - fo·ren·si·cal·ly \ -si-ki-lē, -zi \ adv”

And;

^“2forensic n (1814) 1 : an argumentative exercise 2 : pl but sing or pl in constr : the art or study of argumentative discourse”

Secondly, the Arcade Dictionary of Word Origins describes the etymology of the word “forensic” thus:

“Forensic: “of legal proceedings” (from the Latin forensis ‘of a forum as a place of public discussion’).”

An example of forensics is the medieval argument that the fact that great cities of commerce in the tenth century were all and alike located along the courses of rivers was proof of God’s existence because, in His wisdom, He created a river wherever humankind constructed a city. No one is going to pretend that any such argument is the least bit scientific; nor can anyone deny that it is semantically forensic in nature.

In Webster’s third definition, forensics deals with the "application of scientific knowledge to legal problems." Firearm registrations, sales receipts, gunshot residue, ballistics, fingerprints and DNA have been mainstays of courtroom drama long enough for any regular watcher of TeeVee selected for jury duty to accept them with a knowing smirk as irrefutable evidence of a defendant’s guilt or innocence – depending upon which attorney presents it first, and in what context. Consider how the “forensic evidence” in the following scenario might lead to the conviction of an innocent person:

See Dick and Jane? They’ve been experiencing problems with burglars attempting to enter their home. Jane goes to a sporting goods shop and buys Dick a gun. Dick takes Jane out and teaches her to use the gun in case there’s a break-in while he’s not at home. While Jane is out running an errand, criminals break into the home; a gloved burglar murders Dick with the gun and flees, leaving the smoking weapon behind. Jane returns home to find Dick dead, and telephones the police.

A sales receipt proves Jane purchased a firearm, and the firearm registration confirms that it belonged to Jane. Jane’s fingerprints are on the gun, she has gunshot residue on her hands, and ballistics determine that Dick was shot with Jane’s gun. No one can corroborate Jane’s “alibi” of having been on an errand when Dick was killed. Furthermore, a jealous ex-girlfriend of Dick’s comes forward as a witness and testifies that, at a party the previous summer, after Dick had pushed Jane into a swimming pool, Jane told Dick, “I’ll kill you for that!” A video taken at the party surfaces and confirms that Jane made the threat.

The prosecuting attorney will present all of this evidence as "scientific forensics," which the jury will have been conditioned by TeeVee to believe in. All of the evidence, however, is still only evidence; forensics is not scientific, it is merely the argument that the evidence proves Jane murdered Dick. Does it? Will Jane be convicted of murder and spend twenty years in prison while the killer goes free? Will her family disown her? Will Dick's family insist on the death penalty?Tune in next week, for more exiting forensic science!