I’ve been an avid follower of police procedurals and legal dramas, having followed them religiously since before blogs were even a thing. In those halcyon years of my youth, I, too, had the mistake of thinking that at least some of the scenes you see in those investigation shows were real. Over the years, my fascination with crime stories and court dramas led me to watch actual documentaries on detective work and criminal justice.
One of the many frequently seen breaks from reality is the length of these investigations. Mist detective shows tackle cases that could be closed within less than a week. Real cases usually take months and sometimes even years to resolve, an uphill battle. Other inaccuracies include characters meant to be detectives analyzing evidence (a task left to laboratory technicians) and relying on types of evidence such as DNA that’s not nearly as reliable in real life.
Some of the other more commonly encountered tropes in procedurals are themselves technical impossibilities. Enhancing images on surveillance equipment, for instance, cannot be done due to the low-resolution usually used in security cameras. Likewise, not a few legal dramas portray rather inaccurate (or in period pieces, anachronistic) proceedings and rulings.
Emotions also run high both in real court cases and, contrary to widespread belief, in real crime scenes. One rather comforting fact is that, compared with what you see on TV, certain wrongdoers like serial killers are remarkably rare in real life.
One thing I have learned to accept over the years is that these inaccuracies have their purposes, especially in weekly shows that don’t always have runtime on their side. But that doesn’t mean accurate crime and courtroom stories do not exist: a few are remarkably so spot on in their depictions that they can be used as training material.
I’m Adam Smith, a former banker and retiree enjoying my golden years. For more updates on what I’ve been up to these past few years, follow me on Twitter.
Adam Smith 