The CSI Effect

In yesterday's post about the Melbourne Writer's Festival, the topic naturally turned to the age old question of whether the PI genre is dead and what's allegedly replacing it. Obviously, PI isn't anywhere near rigor mortis, but the trend of describing every nuance of rigor, and then some, is growing ever popular. Laura Lippman brought up a recent article about the dangers of the CSI-ification of society; essentially, more juries are expecting to see the same kind of flash and splash they do on TV, and when they don't, they are more likely to acquit:

"Talking about science in the courtroom used to be like talking about geometry — a real jury turnoff," says Hirschhorn, of Lewisville, Texas. "Now that there's this almost obsession with the (TV) shows, you can talk to jurors about (scientific evidence) and just see from the looks on their faces that they find it fascinating."

But some defense lawyers say CSI and similar shows make jurors rely too heavily on scientific findings and unwilling to accept that those findings can be compromised by human or technical errors.

Prosecutors also have complaints: They say the shows can make it more difficult for them to win convictions in the large majority of cases in which scientific evidence is irrelevant or absent.

"The lesson that both sides can agree on is, what's on TV does seep into the minds of jurors," says Paul Walsh, chief prosecutor in New Bedford, Mass., and president of the National District Attorneys Association. "Jurors are going to have information, or what they think is information, in mind. That's the new state of affairs."

As many readers know, I completed my Master's in forensic science earlier this year, and what I learned had a direct impact on my thoughts on the CSI Universe. While I think any and all exposure the field gets is ultimately positive, there are dangers afoot because of oversimplification, whether on TV or in crime novels, and because of how this oversimplification can be interpreted by the general public.

In terms of juries, acquittals based on faulty understanding of the scientific principles as presented is potentially frightening; especially if the evidence actually demonstrates some proof of guilt, but not to the level expected, and with equipment that's only available in fantasy land or in the dealer room at forensic science conventions where the likelihood of ever being used for evidence is slim to none at best. There are no magic bullets, no instant answers, no lightning fast turnaround times. It would be great if DNA tests could take an hour, if a match could actually be 100% absolute. And if people could distinguish between fiction and reality.

But having said that, I can't help but wonder at those certified as forensic experts in court. Are they clearly explaining the pitfalls and disadvantages to jurors in clear language? Are they tempering their words as they should, or falling into the trap of TV-based expectations? Do they explain why, in certain situations, physical evidence isn't available or relevant? (Example: Kobe Bryant, where a DNA test cannot ever show whether sex was forced or consensual. There isn't a genetic marker for such things, and there never will be.) If juries expect more, then expert witness have to work around these increased expectations and make their presentations even more confident than they would have been otherwise.

I wonder when the appetite for forensic science will abate. The number of schools on the graduate and undergraduate level have increased at near-exponential levels in the last few years, meaning more people competing for the same number of jobs. Resources are getting stretched even thinner, and the case backlog is growing higher because there's little funding for improvement (which is why initiatives like the Crime Lab Project are so important.) Worst of all, something my former professor warned of may be coming true--that the forensic sciences are increasingly based in technical detail and automation and losing out on those who can contextualize the evidence within a larger framework. (Which is why situations like this one occur.)

So what does all this have to do with crime fiction? Simply that forensic science, at least with the popularity it currently possesses, is a fad. Technology gets obsolete very quickly; the basic elements of plot/character/setting/story, if done well, almost never do. Which another reason why I'm much more likely to forgive writing-related flaws than forensic-related ones.

Comments

[John Rickards]

I've never given much thought to the effect shows like CSI have on juries before now, but I have heard of the extra pressure investigators have been put under - usually by victims or their families - as a result of CSI-based assumptions of their capabilities. "You must have been able to get fingerprints from that brick they used to break the window with" being one example I remember hearing from a burglary case - CSI had featured exactly that issue the week before. The officers dealing with the family in question had to explain that it might be theoretically possible with advances in equipment over the next 10-20 years, but otherwise it was impossible. (All from memory - details may have blurred somewhat over time. Still unsure whether it was a brick or a sandstone rock, for instance.)

This extra hassle, where every rubbernecking neighbour and concerned family member wants to play backseat forensic scientist, has AFAIK become a real nuisance for some crime scene investigators who, previously, would have been left alone to go about their work in peace.

On the jury side, I suppose there might be some benefit to at least in part counteract the dashed expectations and the differences between real life and fiction. If juries are paying more interest in forensic evidence, rather than disengaging their brains and waiting for one side's attorney to deliver a summary as to whether the evidence is solid or not, then it may be that it becomes harder for a lawyer to successfully imply evidence is shaky (unless *they* play to the CSI effect as well, of course) because the jury is listening much more closely to the testimony, not just to fragments and each attorney's summing up at the end.

Just a thought - and by nature I'm an optimist, so I may be well, well wide of the mark and can be safely ignored. :-)

I don't think the CSI effect will last, though. The great fad for psychological profiling in the 80s/early 90s and the huge public interest films like Silence of the Lambs has largely died away, and I don't see wham-bang style forensics lasting any longer. Not with the same popularity, at any rate. It'll die back like any fad. I hope...

Personally, I dread having to include too much forensics in my books - especially the practical details like how long Test X will take in reality - simply because it's a complicated science. Research has, I think/hope, just about covered my ass on the occasions I have used it, but I can't help but worry about whether I've got it right or not... :-)

Incidentally, I'm curious about the possible future shortage of people who can contextualise evidence and thereby keep investigations on a realistic track and, eventually, serve as better witnesses when their testimony is called for in court. Is this a lack of something in forensic science as it's taught, or is it something that's in the course but is slowly being squeezed out by growing depth and increasing technical requirements in the rest of the subject?

(Aside: Holy crap! Just previewed this and damn if it isn't a long and rambling comment. I must get in the mood for pontificating late at night...) :-)

[Jim Winter]

Most cops HATE the CSI shows, especially the CSI technicians. Most cases are actually solved by the first and second teams of uniforms on the scene. Barring that, the uniforms are the ones that do most of the investigating. The CSI techs are generally there for brief periods, and sorry, but David Caruso wouldn't cut it. It's pick up anything interesting, get out, and sort it all out later at the lab. If the uniforms don't solve it, it usually goes straight to the detectives.

Most cops I've talked to prefer the Law & Order series. That shows the cases that the uniforms don't solve, and they generally do a good job getting the details right (or did when I watched the show.) Best of all, the CSI techs on the show I often see bitching about lack of equipment and budget cuts, what real police departments go through.

I'm sorry, but I sat through ten weeks of Citizens Police Academy last year, and every cop who spoke hated CSI and CSI: Miami, but they loved L&O. And most of them were uniforms.

[Bryon]

Speaking strictly from a crime writing point of view, this is good news. One of the worries I had early on when all of this was getting popular was that it would mark the end of traditional detective work that is so much fun to write, the interaction with people, etc.

Happily, that has not happened and everything listed in this post and in the comments is chock full of plot complications, character traits and suspense tricks. I am a PI writer always on the lookout for new ways to bring a private operator into a police case, and this post presents plenty. The more people are displeased with the police, the easier it is to bring PIs,

[Laura]

Sarah, here's a key link for those interested in this issue: http://www.crimelabproject.com/index.html