Jump to content

CSI effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cryptic C62 (talk | contribs) at 23:17, 3 February 2011 (dropping "now" per Tony). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of a series on
Forensic science
Physiological
Social
Criminalistics
Digital forensics
Related disciplines
Related articles

The CSI effect (sometimes CSI syndrome[1] or CSI infection[2]) refers to several ways in which the exaggerated portrayal of forensic science on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and other crime shows affects the public perception of forensic science. The term most often refers to the belief that jurors have come to demand more forensic evidence in criminal trials, thereby raising the burden of proof for prosecutors. Although this belief is widely held among American legal professionals, several studies have shown that crime shows are unlikely to cause such an effect.

There are several other manifestations of the CSI effect. The increased public awareness of forensic science has stimulated new interest in solving cold cases, though it has also significantly increased workloads for crime laboratories. The number and popularity of forensic science programs at the university level have greatly increased worldwide, though some new programs have been criticized for inadequately preparing their students for real forensic work. It is possible that forensic science shows teach criminals how to conceal evidence of their crimes, thereby making it more difficult for investigators to solve cases.

Background

See also: Perry Mason syndrome

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, the television program for which the CSI effect is named, first aired in 2000. The show, commonly referred to as CSI, follows the efforts of a fictional team of crime scene investigators who solve murder cases in the Las Vegas area. In each episode, the discovery of a dead body leads to a criminal investigation in which the members of the team gather and analyze forensic evidence, question witnesses, and apprehend suspects.[3]: Ch. IIA  The show quickly became popular, resulting in two spin-offs: CSI: Miami, which launched in 2002, and CSI: NY, in 2004. The success of this franchise resulted in the production of many similar shows;[4] in turn, the CSI effect has been associated with other crime shows including American Justice, Bones, Cold Case, Cold Case Files, Criminal Minds, Crossing Jordan, Dexter, Forensic Files, NCIS, Numb3rs, The Secrets of Forensic Science, Waking the Dead, Wire in the Blood, and Without a Trace.[4][5][1]: Ch. 2  Based on the Nielsen ratings, six of the top ten most popular television shows in the United States in 2005 were crime dramas, and in November 2007, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation reached the number one ranking.[1]: Ch. 2 

Several aspects of popular crime shows have been criticized as being unrealistic. Real murder cases often involve a perpetrator and a victim who are both young black males, a situation which is rarely portrayed on television.[6] In real investigations, DNA and fingerprint data are often unobtainable and can take several weeks to process, whereas television crime labs get results very quickly.[6] In the first season of CSI, technicians made a plaster mold of the interior of a knife wound in order to determine what type of knife was used to make the wound, a procedure which is not possible with current technology.[2] Characters on forensic television programs often use the word "match" when describing a definitive relationship between two pieces of evidence, whereas real-life forensic technicians can only say that one piece of evidence "is associated with" another.[7]

Anthony E. Zuiker, creator of the CSI franchise, claimed that "all of the science [on the show] is accurate";[8] however researchers have described the show's portrayal of forensic science as "high-tech magic".[9] Forensic scientist Thomas Mauriello estimated that 40 percent of the scientific techniques depicted on CSI do not exist.[10] In addition to using unrealistic techniques, CSI ignores all elements of uncertainty that are present in real investigations, instead portraying experimental results as absolute truth.[11] The notion that these inaccurate portrayals could affect criminal behavior and the public perception of forensic evidence was dubbed the CSI effect, a term which began to appear in mainstream media as early as 2004.[5] By 2009, more than 250 media stories had been written about the CSI effect,[12] including articles in National Geographic,[13] Scientific American,[14][15] and U.S. News & World Report.[16]

Although the CSI effect is a recent phenomenon, it has long been recognized that media portrayals of the United States legal system are capable of significantly altering public awareness, knowledge, and opinions of the system.[17] A 2002 juror survey showed that the popular court show Judge Judy greatly misinformed its viewers as to the purpose of the judge within a courtroom.[18] Earlier programs which may have affected public perception of the legal system include Perry Mason (1957–1966) and Quincy, M.E. (1976–1983).[1]: Ch. 4  Other factors which have contributed to the increased public awareness of forensic science include news media reports on criminal trials, extensive internet blogging, and the successes of the Innocence Project.[19]

Manifestations

Trials

The CSI effect purports that, due to the popularity of forensic crime shows on television, many jury members enter trials with misconceptions about the nature of forensic science and investigation procedures.[1]: Ch. 2  There are two main hypotheses for how this affects jury verdicts: the first is that jury members come to expect more forensic evidence than is available or necessary, resulting in a higher rate of acquittal when such evidence is absent; the other is that jury members gain greater confidence in forensic evidence than is warranted, particularly DNA evidence,[20] resulting in a higher rate of conviction when such evidence is present.[9] While these and other effects may be caused by crime shows, the effect most commonly reported is that jurors are wrongly acquitting defendants despite overwhelming evidence of guilt.[3] In particular, prosecutors have reported feeling pressured to provide DNA evidence even when eyewitness testimony is available.[8] One highly publicized example of this was when actor Robert Blake, on trial for murder, was acquitted despite two witness accounts. Robert Cooley, the prosecuting attorney, blamed the acquittal on the CSI effect and claimed that the jury members were "incredibly stupid".[10][21]

By 2005, some prosecutors had begun altering their trial preparations and procedures in an attempt to counter the CSI effect.[22][23] In particular, some prosecutors are asking questions about forensic television viewership during voir dire to target biased jurors; this has involved using opening statements and closing arguments to minimize the possible impact of the CSI effect, and instructing jurors to adhere to the court's standards of evidence rather than those viewed on television.[2] Some prosecutors have even hired expert witnesses to explain why particular forms of physical evidence are not relevant to their cases.[24] By 2006, the CSI effect had become widely accepted as reality among legal professionals, despite little empirical evidence to validate or disprove it.[25] A 2008 survey by researcher Monica Robbers showed that roughly 80 percent of all American legal professionals believed they had had decisions affected by forensic television programs.[26]

New York University professor Tom R. Tyler argued that, from a psychological standpoint, crime shows are more likely to increase the rate of convictions than acquittals, as the shows promote a sense of justice and closure which is not attained when a jury votes to acquit a defendant. The perceived rise in the rate of acquittals may be related to sympathy for the defendant or declining confidence in legal authorities.[25] A 2006 survey of U.S. university students reached a similar conclusion: the influence of CSI is unlikely to burden prosecutors, and may actually help them.[27]

One of the largest empirical studies of the CSI effect was undertaken in 2006 by Washtenaw County Circuit Court Judge Donald Shelton and two researchers from Eastern Michigan University. The study, which surveyed more than 1000 jurors, found that while juror expectations for forensic evidence had increased, there was no correlation between viewership of crime shows and tendency to convict.[28] One alternate explanation for the changing perception of forensic evidence is the so-called "tech effect": as technology improves and becomes more prevalent throughout society, people develop higher expectations for the capabilities of forensic technology.[29] Shelton described one instance in which a jury member complained because the prosecution had not dusted the lawn for fingerprints,[30] a procedure which, besides being impossible, has not been demonstrated on any crime show.[1]: Ch. 7  Further work by the research team found that frequent CSI viewers may place a lower value on circumstantial evidence, but their viewership had no influence on their evaluation of eyewitness testimony or their tendency to convict in cases with multiple types of evidence.[31]

Many publications about the CSI effect are written with the assumption that there has been an increase in acquittal rates, though this is often based entirely on anecdotal evidence. A 2009 study of conviction statistics in eight states found that, contrary to the popular opinion of criminal prosecutors, the acquittal rate has decreased in the years since the debut of the CSI series. The outcome of any given trial is much more strongly dependent on the state in which the trial took place rather than whether it occurred before or after the CSI premiere.[12] A 2010 study by the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee suggests that, while there may be a correlation between crime show viewership and a perceived understanding of DNA evidence, there was no evidence of such viewership affecting jury decision making.[32] As of August 2010, no empirical evidence has demonstrated a correlation between CSI viewership and acquittal rates.[33]

Academia

The manner in which forensic scientists are trained has been influenced by the CSI effect. In the past, those who sought to enter the field of forensics typically earned an undergraduate degree in a general science area followed by a Master's degree. However, the popularity of television programs such as CSI has caused an increase in the demand for undergraduate courses and graduate programs in forensic science.[34] The forensics programs at Florida International University and University of California Davis were reported to have doubled in size as a result of the CSI effect, although many of these students enter the programs with unrealistic expectations.[35] Vocational interest in forensic science has also proliferated among youths in several other countries besides the United States, including Australia,[36] the United Kingdom,[37] and Germany.[38] The increased popularity of the forensic science program at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland has also been attributed to the CSI effect.[39]

Although crime labs encounter more qualified applicants as a result of the increased popularity of forensics programs,[13] there is some concern that these programs do not adequately prepare students for real forensics work, as graduates often lack a firm grasp of basic scientific principles that would come from a science degree.[34] Forensics students are often presented with streamlined exercises with overly clear answers, which may give them distorted perceptions of the power of forensic science.[24]

Although forensic crime shows are often criticized for portraying technologies that do not exist, it is possible that this may inspire inventors and research teams, as it is not uncommon for scientific innovations to be first portrayed in science fiction.[1]: Ch. 12  In 2006, IBM and the Memphis Police Department developed software to predict crime locations and time frames, an idea which may have been inspired by the 2002 science fiction film Minority Report.[40]

Crimes

The CSI effect may be altering how crimes are committed. In 2000, the year that CSI: Crime Scene Investigation made its television debut, 46.9 percent of all rape cases in the United States were solved by police investigators. By 2005, the solve rate had fallen to 41.3 percent.[41] Some investigators attributed this decline to the CSI effect, as crime shows often explain in detail how criminals can conceal or destroy evidence of their crimes. Several rape victims have reported that they were forced by their assailants to shower or clean themselves with bleach after their assaults.[41] In December 2005, Jermaine McKinney broke into a home in Trumbull County, Ohio, where he murdered two women. McKinney, who was known to be a fan of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, went to unusual lengths to remove evidence of the crime: he cleaned his hands with bleach, burned the bodies and his clothing, and attempted to dispose of the murder weapon in a lake.[42] Ray Peavy, head of the Los Angeles County homicide division, commented that, in addition to teaching criminals how to conceal evidence, crime shows may even "encourage them when they see how simple it is to get away with on television."[42]

Others argue that shows like CSI are not having any educational effect on criminals. Max Houck, director of the Forensic Science Initiative at West Virginia University, pointed out that while it is possible that the CSI effect may be educating criminals, people who resort to a life of crime generally are not very intelligent to begin with.[41] It is also possible for crime shows to have the opposite effect, in which the attempts to conceal evidence end up generating more evidence. Houck gives an example of criminals who avoid licking envelopes because of the DNA in their saliva, but end up leaving fingerprints and hair samples on adhesive tape instead.[14] Tammy Klein, the lead investigator on the McKinney case, said that the killings she investigates are committed by people "who for the most part are pretty stupid."[42] Larry Pozner, former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, argued that because people who commit violent crimes generally do not take precautions, television forensics programs are unlikely to have any effect on their behavior.[42]

Police investigations

Law enforcement officers often receive inquiries and demands about their investigations that stem from unrealistic portrayals on television. In a survey of Canadian police officers, some viewed these CSI-affected queries as a source of frustration, though most saw them as opportunities to inform the public about real police work.[43] New technologies and the increased public awareness of forensic science have stimulated new interest in solving cold cases and encouraged higher accountability amongst police investigators.[44] However, the increased demand for forensic evidence can cause an unmanageable workload for forensic laboratories.[8] Some crime labs process several thousand cases every year.[45][46] Many law enforcement agencies have insufficient storage space for the increasing amount of physical evidence they collect.[47] In some investigations, DNA evidence is not collected simply because there is not enough space to store it properly.[48]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Ramsland, Katherine. "The CSI Syndrome". Turner Broadcasting System Inc. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
  2. ^ a b c Lawson, Tamara F. (3 November 2009). "Before the Verdict and Beyond the Verdict: The CSI Infection Within Modern Criminal Jury Trials" (PDF). Loyola University Chicago Law Journal. 41: 132 and 142. Retrieved 1 January 2011.
  3. ^ a b Podlas, Kimberlianne (2007). "The "CSI Effect" and Other Forensic Fictions" (PDF). Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review. 27 (2): 90. Retrieved 21 December 2010.
  4. ^ a b Sellwood, Claire (Winter 2009). "Good Gore" (PDF). Sydney Alumni Magazine. Retrieved 23 January 2011.
  5. ^ a b Chesen, Jeff (July 2008). "The "CSI Effect"—There's No Such Thing as Questions, Just Hidden Answers". It's Evident. NCSTL.org. Retrieved 21 December 2010.
  6. ^ a b "CSI: Unrealistic". College Media Network. 20 July 2008. Retrieved 23 December 2010.
  7. ^ Toobin, Jeffrey. "7 May 2007". The New Yorker. Retrieved 28 December 2010.
  8. ^ a b c Nanji, Ayaz (10 February 2005). "Prosecutors Feel The 'CSI Effect'". CBS News. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
  9. ^ a b Schweitzer, N. J. and Saks, Michael J. (12 March 2007). "The CSI Effect: Popular Fiction About Forensic Science Affects Public Expectations About Real Forensic Science" (PDF). Jurimetrics. 47: 357–364. Retrieved 21 December 2010.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. ^ a b Cole, Simon and Dioso, Rachel (13 May 2005). "Law and the Lab". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 21 December 2010.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. ^ Kruse, Corinna (March 2010). "Producing Absolute Truth: CSI Science as Wishful Thinking". American Anthropologist. 112 (1): 79–91. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1433.2009.01198.x. Retrieved 1 January 2011.
  12. ^ a b Cole, Simon A. and Dioso-Villa, Rachel (2009). "Investigating the 'CSI Effect' Effect: Media and Litigation Crisis in Criminal Law". Stanford Law Review. 61 (6): 1339 and 1358. Retrieved 1 January 2011.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  13. ^ a b Lovgren, Stefan (23 September 2004). ""CSI Effect" Is Mixed Blessing for Real Crime Labs". National Geographic News. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
  14. ^ a b Mirsky, Steve (25 April 2005). "Crime Scene Instigation: TV superscientists affect real courts, campuses and criminals". Scientific American. Retrieved 30 December 2010.
  15. ^ Houck, Max M. (July 2006). "CSI: Reality". Scientific American. pp. 84–89. Retrieved 28 December 2010.
  16. ^ Roane, Kit R. (17 April 2005). "The CSI Effect". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 28 December 2010. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  17. ^ Chase, Anthony (Spring 1986). "Lawyers and Popular Culture: A Review of Mass Media Portrayals of American Attorneys". American Bar Foundation Research Journal. 11 (2): 281. Retrieved 21 December 2010. (subscription required)
  18. ^ Podlas, Kimberlianne (August 2002). "Should we Blame Judge Judy? The messages TV courtrooms send viewers". Judicature. 86 (1): 38. Retrieved 21 December 2010. (subscription required)
  19. ^ Baskin, Deborah R. and Sommers, Ira B. (2010). "Crime-Show-Viewing Habits and Public Attitudes Toward Forensic Evidence: The "CSI Effect" Revisited". Justice System Journal. 31 (1): 1. Retrieved 1 January 2011.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  20. ^ Mandal, Ananya (28 March 2010). "DNA evidence often overwhelms jurors to convict wrongly says research". Medical News. Retrieved 27 December 2010.
  21. ^ Winton, Richard (24 March 2005). "Blake Jurors 'Stupid,' D.A. Says". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 21 December 2010.
  22. ^ Watkins, Michael J. (3 August 2004). "Forensics in the media: Have attorneys reacted to the growing popularity of forensic crime dramas?" (PDF). Florida State University: 84. Retrieved 21 December 2010. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  23. ^ "The CSI Effect and its Real-Life Impact on Justice" (PDF). Maricopa County Attorney's Office. 30 June 2005: 5. Retrieved 21 December 2010. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  24. ^ a b Bergslien, Elisa (May 2006). "Teaching to Avoid the "CSI Effect"". Journal of Chemical Education. 83 (5): 690–691. Retrieved 1 January 2011.
  25. ^ a b Tyler, Tom R. (28 February 2006). "Viewing CSI and the Threshold of Guilt: Managing Truth and Justice in Reality and Fiction" (PDF). The Yale Law Journal. 115: 1051 and 1054. Retrieved 21 December 2010.
  26. ^ Robbers, Monica L. P. (March 2008). "Blinded by Science: The Social Construction of Reality in Forensic Television Shows and its Effect on Criminal Jury Trials". Criminal Justice Policy Review. 19 (1): 84–102. doi:10.1177/0887403407305982. Retrieved 21 December 2010. (subscription required)
  27. ^ Podlas, Kimberlianne (17 March 2006). "The CSI Effect: Exposing the Media Myth" (PDF). Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal. 16: 453. Retrieved 21 December 2010.
  28. ^ Shelton, Donald E.; Kim, Young S.; Barak, Gregg (2007). "A Study of Juror Expectations and Demands Concerning Scientific Evidence: Does the "CSI Effect" Exist?". Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law. 9 (2): 367. Retrieved 21 December 2010.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  29. ^ Shelton, Donald E.; Kim, Young S.; Barak, Gregg (Fall 2009). "An Indirect-Effects Model of Mediated Adjudication: The CSI Myth, the Tech Effect, and Metropolitan Jurors' Expectations for Scientific Evidence" (PDF). Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law. 12 (1): 9. Retrieved 21 December 2010.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  30. ^ Shelton, Donald E. (17 March 2008). "The 'CSI Effect': Does It Really Exist?". National Institute of Justice Journal. 259. Retrieved 21 December 2010.
  31. ^ Kim, Young S.; Barak, Gregg; Shelton, Donald E. (2009). "Examining the "CSI-effect" in the cases of circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony: Multivariate and path analyses". Journal of Criminal Justice. 37 (5): 22. Retrieved 1 January 2011.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  32. ^ Brewer, Paul R. and Ley, Barbara L. (March 2010). "Media Use and Public Perceptions of DNA Evidence". Science Communication. 32 (1): 110. doi:10.1177/1075547009340343. Retrieved 1 January 2010.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (subscription required)
  33. ^ Podlas, Kimberlianne. The Potential Impact of Television on Jurors (PDF). August 2010 Impression and Pattern Evidence Symposium. University of North Carolina at Greensboro. p. 11. Retrieved 1 January 2011.
  34. ^ a b "Police chief criticises forensic courses". BBC News. 10 December 2003. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
  35. ^ Lemaine, Alexander (13 September 2004). "'CSI' spurs campus forensics scene". San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved 1 January 2011.
  36. ^ "How to Crack the CSI Effect". The Age. 20 October 2008. Retrieved 4 January 2011.
  37. ^ Dowling, Tim (15 October 2009). "The grisly truth about CSI degrees". The Guardian. Retrieved 4 January 2011.
  38. ^ Keuneke, S.; Graß, H.; Ritz-Timme, S. (2010). "„CSI-Effekt" in der deutschen Rechtsmedizin Einflüsse des Fernsehens auf die berufliche Orientierung Jugendlichertitle". Rechtsmedizin (in German). 20 (5): 400–407. ISSN 1434-5196. Retrieved 1 January 2011. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  39. ^ Isani, Shaeda (29 September 2010). "Quand la science enquête : imaginaires & représentations de la FASP criminalistique". Revue de l’Institut des Langues et des Cultures d’Europe et d’Amérique (in French). 2010 (12). ILCEA. ISBN 978-2-84310-180-9. Retrieved 7 January 2011. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
  40. ^ Heusner, Ki Mae (28 July 2010). "9 Sensational Sci-Fi Ideas That Came True". ABC News. Retrieved 24 December 2010.
  41. ^ a b c Greenwood, Jill King (25 November 2006). "Criminals get tips from forensic television shows". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
  42. ^ a b c d Pace, Gina (30 January 2006). "'CSI' = Crime Scene Instructions?". CBS News. Retrieved 11 December 2010.
  43. ^ Huey, Laura (2010). "'I've seen this on CSI': Criminal investigators' perceptions about the management of public expectations in the field". Crime Media Culture. 6 (1): 49–68. Retrieved 1 January 2011.
  44. ^ Stevens, Dennis J. (2008). An Introduction to American Policing. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p. 406. ISBN 9780763748937. Retrieved 21 December 2010.
  45. ^ "High-Tech Crime Lab Sorts 3,600 Cases Each Year". Hearst Properties, Inc. 1 December 2010. Retrieved 24 December 2010.
  46. ^ "Backlogs and Their Impact on the Criminal Justice System". National Institute of Justice. 12 July 2010. Retrieved 24 December 2010.
  47. ^ Durnal, Evan W. (12 March 2010). "Crime scene investigation (as seen on TV)". Forensic Science International. 199: 4. PMID 20227206. Retrieved 1 January 2011. (subscription required)
  48. ^ Pratt, Travis C.; et al. (March 2006). "This Isn't CSI". Criminal Justice Policy Review. 17 (1): 38. doi:10.1177/0887403405278815. Retrieved 1 January 2011. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CSI_effect&oldid=411875708"