The “CSI effect”

The Economist: The "CSI effect"

Television dramas that rely on forensic science to solve crimes are affecting the administration of justice.

Television dramas that rely on forensic science to solve crimes are affecting the administration of justice.

OPENING a new training centre in forensic science (pictured above) at the University of Glamorgan in South Wales recently, Bernard Knight, formerly one of Britain’s chief pathologists, said that because of television crime dramas, jurors today expect more categorical proof than forensic science is capable of delivering. And when it comes to the gulf between reality and fiction, Dr Knight knows what he is talking about: besides 43 years’ experience of attending crime scenes, he has also written dozens of crime novels.

The upshot of this is that a new phrase has entered the criminological lexicon: the “CSI effect” after shows such as “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation”. In 2008 Monica Robbers, an American criminologist, defined it as “the phenomenon in which jurors hold unrealistic expectations of forensic evidence and investigation techniques, and have an increased interest in the discipline of forensic science.”

Now another American researcher has demonstrated that the “CSI effect” is indeed real. Evan Durnal of the University of Central Missouri’s Criminal Justice Department has collected evidence from a number of studies to show that exposure to television drama series that focus on forensic science has altered the American legal system in complex and far-reaching ways. His conclusions have just been published in Forensic Science International.

The most obvious symptom of the CSI effect is that jurors think they have a thorough understanding of science they have seen presented on television, when they do not. Mr Durnal cites one case of jurors in a murder trial who, having noticed that a bloody coat introduced as evidence had not been tested for DNA, brought this fact to the judge’s attention. Since the defendant had admitted being present at the murder scene, such tests would have thrown no light on the identity of the true culprit. The judge observed that, thanks to television, jurors knew what DNA tests could do, but not when it was appropriate to use them. …

I personally prefer NCIS. I've considered instituting the Gibbs head slap as part of my interaction at Presbyterian events, but I've been informed that might not be well received. Nevertheless, it is tempting.


Comments

One response to “The “CSI effect””

  1. This is indeed a real problem. Jurors regularly think you can test for more than you really can, or indeed that tests are more conclusive than they really are. Compounding this problem is the amount of shaky science used in courtrooms ( http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann ), the occasional dishonest government official ( http://www.mync.com/site/wake/news/story/48156/testimony-continues-today-in-greg-taylor-innocence-commission-hearing ), and institutional bias. Here in NC, for instance, instead of the state crime lab being an independent office like the medical examiner, it’s an arm of the attorney general’s office.
    And yes, NCIS > CSI.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading