Impact of the CSI Television Series on Forensic Science - Essay Example

IMPACT OF THE CSI TELEVISION SERIES ON FORENSIC SCIENCE (school) Impact of the CSI Television Series on Forensic Science Introduction About ten years ago, the television show CSI or Crime Scene Investigation graced our television sets. The show’s format, presentation, and story lines presented stories on criminal investigation and on the process of apprehending criminals. Its stories were very much realistic that it drew in viewers from the general population in the millions. But more than its commercial success, CSI also gave birth to the phenomenon known among criminologists as the “CSI-effect.” This phenomenon basically refers to the seeming trivialization and glamorization of the real CSI world. It also refers to the fact that potential criminals are finding ways to avoid detection or to get away with their crimes by watching the show. With these considerations, it is apt to say that CSI has had a major impact on forensic science. This paper shall discuss such impacts based on input from criminologists and forensic scientists. This discussion is being undertaken in the hope of coming up with a clear and comprehensive discussion on the current subject matter and its long-term implications in the forensic practice. Discussion In understanding the impact of CSI on forensic science, the discussion goes deeper into the so-called CSI-effect. In the immediate years following the launch of the television show, forensic science courses and careers gained much popularity in the academe (Lee, 2007, p. 22). Judging from the increase in the number of university applicants to forensic courses, the show was able to draw in university applicants to try out for careers in these fields of practice. However, these applicants may have been misinformed by the television show – implying that the roles of CSIs to be much more than they actually are in the real world (Lee, 2007, p. 22). For one, the fact that most of the CSIs seem to play various roles on set – as forensic processor, suspect interrogator, or as police detectives – are already inaccurate depictions of crime scene investigators. In actuality, CSIs do not process forensics, nor do they interrogate suspects or run after suspects with guns drawn (Lee, 2007, p. 22). In effect, CSI has drawn in forensic science enthusiasts based on an inaccurate picture of the actual workings of CSI work. People have been drawn to it based on their romantic and even gallant or heroic ideals about the type of work involved in being a CSI. But this picture of the CSI in the actual practice is not all true. CSI also has had an impact on juries. Many of these juries seem to expect and even demand that the case be presented to them in much the same way as what unfolds in their TV-screens. Moreover, they seem to expect that every crime can be solved through DNA testing or through the use of the latest in technological innovations (Willing, 2004). Although there is truth in this belief, this may not always apply to the cases brought before juries. In effect, the CSIs often end up submitting tons of forensic evidence for testing just to evaluate their relevance to the case (Lee, 2007, p. 22). As a result, many laboratories have become backlogged from the volume of evidence submitted for forensic processing (Botluck & Mitchell, 2005). It is also important to note that there are various inconsistencies in the seemingly instantaneous results seen from database searches. The show depicts characters running prints through AFIS (Automated Fingerprint Identification System) or DNA through CODIS (Combined DNA System) and within minutes or seconds, matches to such prints or DNA immediately appears (Bochenek, 2005). In actuality, possible matches to prints are shown by the AFIS system and manual work is still carried out in order to reach higher percentages in accuracy (Lee, 2007, p. 23). Running DNA through CODIS also does not yield instant matches. In real time, matching DNA can take months to undertake due to backlog of cases (Bochenek, 2008). The show also depicts severely blurred pictures and later how they can be cleared and enhanced for recognition. The truth of the matter is clearing pictures can only work for slightly blurred images (Lee, 2007, p. 28). The above instances show inaccurate depictions of actual forensic science and CSI work. Consequently, it affects how juries and law enforcement officers often process and deal with the actual work in the courtroom. Nevertheless, the show also provides a standard in the science which helps to direct governments and law enforcement officers in the apprehension of criminals and ensuring the proper administration of justice. Law enforcement officials take issue with the show because it seems to represent them as miracle workers and the public seems to expect much from them as investigators (Stinson, Patry, & Smith, 2007, p. 128). The public and even juries do not seem to understand that most CSI units have backlog going back for months, and mostly even years. They also do not understand that most investigating units are not sufficiently staffed in order to meet all the demands of their time and their work (Stinson, Patry, & Smith, 2007, p. 128). But juries and the general public think that criminal investigation nowadays is very much like the CSI set-up. In instances when there is no DNA evidence presented, some jurors may demand the presentation of DNA evidence to prove the suspect’s guilt. When none is presented, suspects are often released. This is unfortunate when the suspect is actually guilty of the crime (Jes, 2008, p. 1). These are just some of the unfortunate repercussions of CSI which negatively affects the proper administration of law. Some actual forensic technicians do not entirely discount the elements of the show; and for some people who can manage to separate fact from fiction, the actual administration of justice would not cause too many problems. However, there are some people who take the representations of the show to be the actual scene in criminal investigation (Jes, 2008, p. 2). And these are the people who often cause hung juries and suspects walking away on technicalities. When placed on the spot to make a decision on a case, some members of the jury may review the evidence presented before them and all other testimonies they have heard and still find it hard to decide on a proper verdict. They would likely see expert testimonies and other evidence to be confusing and ambiguous. In these instances, some of them often fall back to what they are comfortable with – proceedings they have seen in television (Heinrick, 2006, p. 59). Prosecutors often feel that they have strong cases against defendants through testimonies of witnesses, through inconsistent statements from defendants, and from the behavior of the defendants. Based on such elements, they are often sure that defendants are guilty of committing the crimes. However, some jury members look for forensic evidence to back up the case filed before them and they often base their decision on the presence or absence of forensic evidence (Dakks, 2005). After all, it is what they see on TV – DNA evidence proving a person’s guilt. To their mind, the rest – regardless of quality of evidence – is all circumstantial. This CSI effect is dangerous when the guilty defendants are set free. In fact in an Illinois case, a man accused of the attempted murder of his girlfriend was found not guilty because there was no forensic evidence found against him. When he was released, he immediately went ahead to kill his ex-girlfriend (Heinrick, 2009, p. 59). In another case, despite two eye witness accounts, a man was acquitted of murder because the jury refused to convict the accused based on witness testimonies alone. Other cases which seem to reflect the CSI effect on forensic science can be seen in the administration of justice. It is also unfortunate to note how some jury members demand forensic tests, like DNA, handwriting analysis, gunshot residue testing, ballistic testing even when these are not needed in the case (Heinrick, 2009, p. 60). And when such tests are not conducted or when they do fail to prove the defendant’s guilt or innocence, they still decide in favor of the accused regardless of all other evidence which may prove the defendant’s guilt. In other words, CSI has made the job of prosecutors and actual CSI much harder and much more tedious (Heinrich, 2009, p. 60). As far as criminals are concerned, CSI also has had an impact on them. Criminals now seem to be smarter in their perpetuation of crimes. An interview with Ray Peavy of the LA County Sheriff’s Department revealed that they used to find cigarette butts, beer cans, sweaty hat bands, blood, semen, or hairs in crime scenes, but now, these things are hardly being left in crime scenes (Rowlands, 2006). In the case of McKinney in Ohio, he used bleach to clean up the crime scene after killing Cliburn and her mother Rollyson. Interviews revealed that McKinney liked to watch CSI and other forensic criminal shows (Rowlands, 2006). He was however arrested after he attempted to use one of the victim’s credit cards. Other investigators are however keen to point out that inasmuch as CSI seems to be teaching criminals on how to get away with their crimes, the real CSI will still be able to apprehend them because it is “categorically impossible for someone to get rid of all of the evidence that someone leaves at a crime scene. They can try, but they are not going to succeed in covering it all up” (Rowlands, 2006). Conclusion As illustrated in the case above, CSI has had a significant impact on Forensic Science. For one, it has glamorized and romanticized forensic science. As a result, it has drawn in people into considering it as a career and course option in the universities. The show however has presented numerous inaccurate representations of criminal forensics and such misconceptions are being used as basis for university enrollees and career-seekers. Juries have also come to perceive the TV process as the process applied in actual crime scenes. As the show makes use of forensic evidence to prove a person’s guilt, juries also seem to expect that forensic evidence is the only irrefutable proof they can accept to decide a person’s guilt (or innocence). This practice however, has unfortunately set some guilty criminals free. The TV show has also educated many criminals on how to escape detection. Investigators insist however that they are still one step ahead of criminals because these criminals may be able to clean up any trace of their presence, but they would not be able to clean all traces of evidence which might incriminate them. And these slip-ups are what investigators are counting on. All in all, even as CSI has impacted negatively on law enforcement officers the real CSI, the show has also set an ideal standard for in criminal forensics and investigations. It has presented the ideal picture for governments to aim for, and that if these standards are set up in law enforcement it is possible to achieve the success rate of the fictional CSI characters in apprehending criminals. Works Cited Bochenek, L. (2008) CSI Effect: The Impact of CSI and other Forensic Television Programs on decisions of jurors, law enforcement, forensic analysts/scientists and the criminals themselves, Excelsior College, viewed 09 November 2010 from https://www.excelsior.edu/portal/page/portal/EC_Library_Portlets/MA-LS_Thesis/Bochenek_Lisa2008.pdf Botluk, D. & Mitchell, B. (2006) Getting a Grip on the CSI Effect: The National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law at Stetson University, Law and technology resources for legal professionals, viewed 09 November 2010 from http://www.llrx.com/features/csieffect.htm Dakss, B. (2005) The CSI Effect: Does The TV Crime Drama Influence How Jurors Think? CBS News, viewed 09 November 2010 from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/21/earlyshow/main681949.shtml Heinrich, J. (2006) Everyone’s an Expert: The CSI Effect’s Negative Impact on Juries, Arizona State University, viewed 09 November 2010 from http://www.cspo.org/documents/csieffectheinrick.pdf Jes, H. (2008) The C.S.I. Effect: How Crime Shows Change Real Life, Associated Content, viewed 09 November 2010 from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/671755/the_csi_effect_how_crime_shows_change_pg2.html?cat=17 Lee, A. (2007) The CSI Effect: TV’s Impact on the Future of Forensic Science, The Triple Helix Cambridge, viewed 09 November 2010 from http://camtriplehelix.com/...csi...impact...forensic-science/pdf Rowlands, T. (2006) CSI effect cuts both ways, CNN Justice, viewed 09 November 2010 from http://articles.cnn.com/2006-02-15/justice/btsc.rowlands_1_csi-effect-crime-lab-crime-show?_s=PM:LAW Stinson, V., Patry, M., & Smith, S. (2007) The CSI Effect: Reflections from Police and Forensic Investigators, The Canadian Journal of Police and Security Officers, volume 5, number 4, pp. 125-133 Willing, R. (2004) CSI effect has juries wanting more evidence, USA Today, viewed 09 November 2010 from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-08-05-csi-effect_x.htm Read More