CSI Effect
You don't need to be Editor-In-Chief to add or edit content to WikiDoc. You can begin to add to or edit text on this WikiDoc page by clicking on the edit button at the top of this page. Next enter or edit the information that you would like to appear here. Once you are done editing, scroll down and click the Save page button at the bottom of the page.
 |
|---|
| Physiological sciences |
| Forensic pathology · Forensic dentistry |
| Forensic anthropology · Forensic entomology |
| Social sciences |
| Forensic psychology · Forensic psychiatry |
| Other specializations |
| Fingerprint analysis · Forensic accounting |
| Ballistics · Bloodstain pattern analysis |
| DNA analysis · Forensic toxicology |
| Forensic footwear evidence |
| Questioned document examination |
| Cybertechnology in forensics |
| Information forensics · Computer forensics |
| Related disciplines |
| Forensic engineering |
| Forensic materials engineering |
| Forensic polymer engineering |
| Fire investigation |
| Vehicular accident reconstruction |
| People in Forensics |
| Auguste Ambroise Tardieu |
| Edmond Locard |
| Bill Bass |
| Gil Grissom |
| Related articles |
| Crime scene · CSI Effect |
| Trace evidence · Skid mark |
| Use of DNA in forensic entomology |
The "CSI Effect" (sometimes referred to as the "CSI syndrome") is a reference to the phenomenon of popular television shows such as the CSI franchise, Law & Order, Silent Witness and Waking the Dead raising crime victims' and jury members' real-world expectations of forensic science, especially crime scene investigation and DNA testing.[1] This is said to have changed the way many trials are presented today, in that prosecutors are pressured to deliver more forensic evidence in court.[1][1]
Media portrayal of forensic science
On the CSI and L&O shows, toxicology and DNA tests often seem to be instantaneous, whereas actual results can take months. Blurry photos and video can be greatly magnified and sharpened to clearly reveal the most minute details, and audio recordings can be similarly processed to an unrealistic degree. Searches of computer databases of fingerprints, employee records, etc. are shown to be almost instantaneous and nearly foolproof. Furthermore, on some shows virtually all imaginable electronically stored information from building blueprints to old newspapers is readily accessible from the police or intelligence officer's computer, whereas in real life finding such information could take months. Finally, the investigators seem to be able to conjure up highly detailed graphic animations, often in 3D, in a matter of minutes or hours, where in reality specialists would work on such models for days or weeks.
Also, on some shows (e.g., the CSI franchise, Without A Trace, and Cold Case), eyewitness testimony is presented in the form of flashback scenes, creating the impression that the witness is being absolutely truthful and has perfect memory of the events they are describing. However, often inaccurate witness testimonies or speculated theories are portrayed in CSI, possibly as a way of redressing this balance. In Cold Case, this often entails events from decades earlier, sometimes witnessed as children. In CSI, the flashbacks are presented in black and white until the reveal, at which point the flashback will be in color, showing the definitive version of events.
Manifestations of the CSI Effect
Influence on jurors
Although speculation as to the validity of the CSI effect abounds, researchers have only recently begun studying the effect of CSI on juror behavior.[1] One empirical study of the "CSI effect" suggests that viewers of CSI and other forensic science shows are more critical of forensic science testimony and less persuaded by it; however, these same differences were not found for viewers of Law and Order (and other "general crime" shows), which implies that the "CSI effect" is limited to those who watch specifically forensic-science shows.[1] Another study surveyed potential jurors and failed to find a link between CSI viewing and whether the jurors would "demand scientific evidence" in order for them to convict a defendant.[1] A third study examined mock jurors' impressions of a criminal trial and found that CSI viewers' verdicts were not significantly different from non-viewers.[1]
Prospective students and other people who overestimate the reality-basis of shows such as CSI may develop unreasonable expectations of actual forensic practitioners. Although the technologies lauded on these fictional programs are found in real crime labs, they often require much more time and deliver answers more equivocal in real life than on television. Analysts worry that people will come to believe that real criminalist science has become as swift and certain as we have always wished justice to be. DNA evidence in particular is expected more and more by jurors whether it is relevant or not in a given case. Some potential jurors find themselves, during voir dire, being asked whether they are viewers of shows such as CSI.
For a recent Delaware Superior Court case taking judicial notice of the "CSI Effect" and deeming various inconclusive test results and other evidence admissible in order to mitigate the "CSI Effect," see State v. Cooke, 914 A.2d 1078. While the court accepted the argument that the inconclusive evidence was relevant, it did not accept some of this inconclusive evidence that would not have passed the Daubert standard of reliability.
Influence on the criminal mind
The "CSI effect" may also be altering how crimes are committed. Tammy Klein, a criminalist for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and other criminal experts have noticed an increase in criminal cases in which suspects burn or tamper with evidence (e.g. using bleach to destroy DNA evidence), or attempt to carefully clean the crime scene of trace evidence such as hairs and clothing fibers. For example, critics cite a particular murder case in Trumbull County, Ohio. The prime suspect in this case, described as a CSI fan, murdered a mother and daughter. He then used bleach to wash his hands of blood and covered the interior of his car with blankets to avoid transferring blood as he transported the corpses, which he then burned along with his clothes and cigarette butts (which he feared would yield trace amounts of his DNA). He attempted to throw the remaining evidence into a local lake, including the murder weapon, a crowbar, but was unable to dispose of the evidence due to the lake's surface being frozen. The surviving evidence was later recovered by investigators and the suspect arrested.[1]
A more optimistic view of the CSI effect would suggest that these programs send criminals the message that no matter how much they try to cover up their crimes, forensic scientists can track them down. (As Delko said on the February 6, 2006 episode of the CSI: Miami spinoff, "Criminals only clear away what they can see.") Criminals who try to clean up a scene risk leaving evidence of the clean-up itself which may be traced back to them. Other crime shows—"Diagnosis Murder", for instance—feature episodes in which doctors and police themselves use the access they have to information to commit crimes in ways that are difficult to detect. Indeed, even a century before DNA evidence came into prominence, Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes once remarked, "When a doctor does go wrong he is the first of criminals."[1]
Influence on forensic science training programs
Academia is also said to feel this effect. Universities have seen an increase in students enrolling in forensic science and related science programs. There has been criticism from police departments that, in an effort to increase their student numbers, universities have been offering unsuitable courses, leaving graduates unprepared for real-world forensic work.[1] The traditional academic route followed by a would-be forensic scientist has been to pursue a primary (bachelor's) degree in a general-science subject such as chemistry or biology, followed by a suitable postgraduate course or some type of in-service training. In 2003, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences promulgated accreditation standards for forensic science educational programs through its Forensic Science Educational Program Accreditation Commission (FEPAC),[1] based on recommendations from the US National Institute of Justice.[1]
Highly publicized trials such as those of Scott Peterson, Robert Blake and O.J. Simpson have also drawn many people into forensics. Basic-cable TV networks like Court TV, Discovery Channel and A&E also carry many programs depicting forensic investigations of actual cases, such as Forensic Files, Cold Case Files, Body Of Evidence: From the Case Files of Dayle Hinman, and American Justice.
See also
References
External links
- National Geographic: "CSI Effect" is Mixed Blessing for Real Crime Labs
- USAToday: 'CSI effect' has jurors wanting more evidence
- USNews.com: The CSI Effect: On TV it's all slam dunk evidence and quick convictions
- CBS News: The CSI Effect
- CBS News: TV Crime Drama Aiding Real Life Killers
- BBC Report: CSI shows give 'unrealistic view'
- "CSI effect" at The Guardian.
Template:CSI franchisede:CSI-Effekt
nl:CSI-effect
Acknowledgement and Attribution Regarding Sources of Content
Some of the initial content on this page may be incorporated in part from copyleft sources in the public domain including wikis such as Wikipedia and AskDrWiki. Drug information for patients came from the The National Library of Medicine. Infectious disease information may have come from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Differential Diagnoses are drawn from clinicians as well as an amalgamation of 3 sources: 1.The Disease Database; 2. Kahan, Scott, Smith, Ellen G. In A Page: Signs and Symptoms. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2004:3; 3. Sailer, Christian, Wasner, Susanne. Differential Diagnosis Pocket. Hermosa Beach, CA: Borm Bruckmeir Publishing LLC, 2002:7 .
