The CSI-Effect Debate Continues
At the AAFS conference in San Antonio, I had the pleasure to present my ongoing research on the CSI effect at a Breakfast Seminar. The session was well attended and I trust that our preliminary findings did not disappoint anyone. Unfortunately, the jury is still out on the validity of the CSI effect arguments. Thus far, neither I nor a co-presenter has been able to refute the existence of the CSI effect. However, we have noticed some interesting trends among the jurors we have interviewed in Florida, Tennessee, and Australia.
One of the most outstanding findings from the sample of Florida and Tennessee jurors is that everyone, regardless of fictional forensic science programming viewership (like the CSI series), is disappointed in the amount of forensic science testimony and evidence proffered at trial. It is unclear if this translates in acquittals, or significantly so, given the size of the samples thus far. This finding has been echoed by the vast majority of a sample of AAFS members and affiliates – jurors and the public are expecting much more from forensic scientists. For example, one respondent reported, “I think it’s universally held among those in the forensic community that the popularity of CSI-like shows has raised jurors’ awareness of forensic science as well as increased their expectations of what and how much evidence should be presented at trials.” While not all respondents felt this way, a large percentage had similar sentiments.
It should be noted here that this jury data was collect at run-of-the-mill trials where forensic testimony and evidence is not typically presented. Not one juror in both jurisdictions reported feeling satisfied at the level of forensic testimony and evidence presented at trial – and this is a bold finding. Much more data is being collected to see if this trend holds or is moderated/mediated by other variables such as trust in the police and in the people that collect scientific evidence.
My co-presenter’s focus was much broader. But, in summary, while reviewing these two projects that interview jurors post-trial, we have learned that jurors can be skeptical of forensic science testimony and evidence and have the ability to actively scrutinize what is presented to them in a meaningful way.
More information on this as soon as it comes. In the meantime, the upcoming NIJ national conference includes presentations on this very subject. For more information, please see their website.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
GREAAAT START TO A NEEDED COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE FIELD OF FORENSICS!!!
April 19th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
As a forensic scientist I can definetely see the impact television shows such as CSI and Forensic Files have had on the profession. The public is much more aware of what forensic science is and juries expect to see forensic testimony in court. On a positive note it seems as though more effort is being made to better fund crime labs so that technology can be updated and more employees can be properly trained. By no means are funding levels adequate to keep up with the demand that the ongoing presence of criminal activity necessitates, but steps are being made in the right direction.
However, on the flip side, I question whether or not too much insight into the field is available on television. While the television dramas have their inaccuracies, they do hire forensic consultants to help ensure that a lot of what they display is scientifically accurate. My worry is that by exposing the public to this information, criminal minds are being educated. By showing how science is used to capture criminals, are we teaching criminals how to get away with crime? Granted, there are a number of other ways to become educated about the field (i.e. textbooks, true crime novels, journals, the internet), but television seems to be the simplest and most widely available medium. Today at work a co-worker was telling me about an episode they saw that detailed how drugs could be manipulated so as to be undetectable to drug sniffing dogs. I don’t know if the technique is valid scientifically but if it is, is this really a tool we want in the arsenal of drug traffickers and dealers? I’ve also heard of “copykats” that try to mimick a crime they’ve observed on T.V. Again, this type of outcome, causes me to question the true effects these shows can have.
April 20th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Hi Darren!
A lot of chatter about “learning how to do crime” via these shows occurred after the Robert Blake trial. Apparently he was found floundering in the grass after his wife was shot - some say to get rid of the gun shot residue. Many blame television for reminding us of the capabilities of forensic scientists (if not overvalue our capabilities) and it’s to the point where more folks are covering up their tracks with their television training.
But I want to challenge this - at least by and large - with a close examination of who is incarcerated in this country. If we surveyed those in the jail and prison system, I can guarantee you that only a very small minority have this sort of faux-forensic training. The amount of people that actually may use this know-how is a smaller subset of these folks. Taking this one step further, when looking at crimes of passion, much of this occurs very quickly and very sloppy (so to speak).
So, all in all, I would be very surprised if this sort of exposure has much impact on our homicide clearance rates…or many other crimes. But this is, indeed, an empirical question!
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:36 am
First, great topic - thanks! Next, like was mentioned above, I’ve also seen a greater awareness from juries about forensic science. But like was mentioned in the post - sometimes we get up there and testify for 30 seconds on something, and you can almost hear the jury wondering “Why was she here?” I think it comes back to a really good point made by Max Houck at a class I recently took on expert testimony…
1 - Law enforcement wants to make an arrest.
2 - Forensic scientists want to find results.
3 - Lawyers want to win the case.
While Max even said this was a very simple example, it is definitely true - we live in different worlds from the lawyers, and our goals are not the same. What we have as results may not be what the attorney sees as important to winning the case. That’s when we run into that every lovely problem of the atty telling us “OK, this is what I want you to talk about.”
If we are seeing frustration from juries about the shortage of forensic science information, then obviously one of the CSI effects is that their TV education is making their goal more in line with ours - they want to see results. When we sit there and give our testimony, guided by the atty’s questions, we may not be delivering those results. In the end, the jury may become frustrated by not hearing more, and I confess to not a little bit of professional irritation at days worth of work boiled down to ten minutes on the stand.
So how do we solve it? How do we show our results to the jury, satisfying their desire to see and hear more of that “fancy CSI stuff?” It’s easy to say ‘educate the attorneys!’ like they had time to spend learning what we can and can’t do. Perhaps on a case by case basis, we can make a commitment to teach just that one prosecutor about what we did in that case. We can offer to talk about why we didn’t get prints, or to bring in visual aids, or to do something to show the attorneys that if they can understand our need (and the jury’s need!) to see results, we may be able to help the atty reach their goal - a win.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:47 pm
There is no doubt that the average juror is able to “actively scrutinize what is presented to them in a meaningful way.” The average juror is reasonably intelligent, not an idiot. However, the question is this: in what manner do they they scrutinize it, and on what basis do they evaluate it? The problem with the CSI Effect is that jurors have been given unreasonable expections based upon what they see on the CSI stable of shows and so may disregard other reliable evidence if the expected evidence is not presented.
For example, jurors have been cited in post-verdict interviews as stating that they acquitted because they expected the police to find and present fingerprints or DNA evidence conclusively linking the suspect to the scene and the prosecution failed to present this evidnece. They disregarded other significant evidence as a result, despite the reality that usable fingerprints and detectible DNA residues simply aren’t present at most crime scenes. Just because most crimes have to be solved and prosecuted using “lesser” types of evidence, that doesn’t mean that evidence is unreliable.
Another aspect of the CSI effect is that some jurors disbelieve witnesses (including forensic witnesses) when the witnesses testify in a way that contradicts what the jurors saw on the CSI shows. This is because the CSI franchise loudly and consistently (but falsely) claimed that everything depicted on the show was 100% accurate regarding the science involved. “This is exactly how it’s done in the real world, folks!” - or words to similar effect.
The CSI shows are unique in this regard - never before had any fictional television show made a similar claim. Even after we forensic scientists started pointing out some of the fallacies, unrealistic premises, and outright fabrications of the so-called “forensic science” depicted on the original show, the promoters (including their ex-forensic scientist advisor) continued to insist the forensic science depicted was completely accurate and that dramatic license was taken only with the case investigation process. This not only gave the public a completely false idea of what forensic scientists do (we’re not cops, we don’t make arrests, interview witnesses, interrogate suspects, etc.), it also gave them completely unrealistic expectations of what forensic science is and isn’t capable of (like identifying the murder knife by pouring molding compound into the gaping wound of the victim’s body, possibly the most outrageous of the many fallacies routinely depicted on these shows). Again, these shows were taken far more seriously by the public than any other crime dramas are, because of the false claims of realism.
Now that so many CSI Effect exposes have begun revealing the truth to the wider viewing public, it’s my hope that the great harm the CSI Effect has done to the objectivity of our potential jury pools will begin to wane, and the Effect itself will begin to die. At the least, it has forced the CSI promotors to abandon their false claims of realism and scientific accuracy, so that new fans of the shows (potential jurors all) will hopefully not be similarly misled.
April 24th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Good point about the fingerprints and such, Bob… I’ve actually been to court more times to testify why I didn’t get prints than why I did! But I have a good little speech worked up to explain in basic terms why prints might not be on an item. You can really see the jury react well to it, and so far, it’s always worked to the prosecution’s advantage to let me explain.
And thanks for the reminder about the ‘knife mold’ thing on CSI - that irritated me as much as the time they used luminol in broad daylight in a garbage can in the middle of a street.
Anywho, there’s a good article by Max Houck in the July 2006 edition of Scientific American called “CSI: The Reality” that I use for training and community education. It’s easy reading if anyone needs it for sharing with non-scientists.
May 4th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
O.K. I admit I like CSI and for nothing more it brings applied science to the public. Sure it may all not be 100%, but if the writers can keep the shows entertaining that is what counts.
Let me go a different line of thought. Most people serving on a jury want to be there (Those that don’t want to be there can find a way to duck their responsibility). If I accept that idea then I must decide if the jury member is really trying to find the truth or make a personal statement regardless of the facts i.e. O.J. Simpson case.
If we believe the members want to do a good job and they have been raised with attorney jokes (and truths)most of them probably look at the 2 people presenting the case before them as being sharks and money grabbers. And they also know more than either attorney because they have read the whole truth in the newspaper. Therefore, the CSI may not be the TV image per se to the jury, but the actual “truth” of the case, the material that will help them make a decision regardless of what either attorney, the newspaper or radio says. The lab results are the “truth” … please provide that to me so I can make an honest decision if I chose to do so.
Another interesting study (which I am sure has been done) is how the jury responds to the individual presenting the lab results i.e. a good looking young female vs and old pot bellied bald guy? Who is the CSI expert?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:18 am
I know some folks up at John Jay looking at that right now. Here’s one one on defendant characteristics:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb01552.x
March 20th, 2008 at 11:58 am
favorited this one, dude