Misconceptions of forensic science fostered by media
Misconceptions of forensic science fostered by media refer to the inaccurate beliefs held by the public regarding the practices and capabilities of forensic investigations, largely shaped by fictional portrayals in television and film. These depictions often present a skewed version of crime scene analysis and forensic techniques, leading to unrealistic expectations about evidence processing speed and accuracy. For example, while shows like the CSI franchise suggest that forensic evidence is swiftly collected and analyzed within a single episode, the reality is that evidence often takes months or even years to process due to backlogs in labs. Additionally, these programs frequently overemphasize the presence of ideal evidence like DNA at crime scenes, while in practice, such evidence is rare, and forensic scientists spend most of their time on other types of analysis.
This phenomenon, often referred to as the "CSI effect," raises concerns among legal professionals about how these dramatized portrayals may influence jurors' perceptions during trials. Jurors may enter deliberations with inflated beliefs about forensic capabilities, complicating the prosecution's job while potentially benefiting the defense. Despite various studies exploring the CSI effect, findings suggest that heavy viewers of crime dramas are not significantly more likely to acquit defendants based on perceived forensic standards. Ultimately, the tension between media portrayals and actual forensic science underscores the importance of accurate public understanding in the legal context.
Subject Terms
Misconceptions of forensic science fostered by media
DEFINITION: Mistaken ideas about the work of forensic science held by the general public as a result of the ways in which fictional mass media, particularly television, portray the technology and personnel involved in forensic investigations.
SIGNIFICANCE: Because the depictions of crime scene investigation and forensic science widely seen in fictional films and television programs are often incongruent with reality, some observers have voiced concerns about public perceptions of the functions that criminalists perform and the techniques used in the field of forensic science. It has been argued that misconceptions of forensic science fostered by the mass media may lead jurors to have unrealistic expectations about the strength of evidence and the forensic procedures available for use in actual criminal cases.
Forensic science has long been depicted in works of fiction. In the nineteenth century, Sherlock Holmes, the master detective character created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, used forensic investigation techniques. The comic-strip police detective Dick Tracy, created in 1931 by Chester Gould, also was depicted as being skilled in forensics. During the 1970s, the American television series Quincy, M.E. (1976–1983) featured stories about the activities of a medical examiner (forensic coroner) who worked to collect evidence on suspicious deaths that occurred in the Los Angeles area.
The number of television shows focusing attention on crime scene investigation and forensic science increased dramatically after 2000. Most notable among these are the programs that make up what is often referred to as the CSI franchise. On October 6, 2000, the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) aired the first episode of a new series titled CSI: Crime Scene Investigation; the show quickly became enormously successful, and CBS subsequently added two spin-off series, CSI: Miami (2002) and CSI: NY (2004). Other networks also began to air dramatic series featuring forensic science prominently. Crossing Jordan (2001–7), which focused on the cases of a fictional medical examiner in Boston, became part of the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) lineup. In 2005, the Fox television network began airing the series Bones, which is loosely based on the cases of real-life forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs. Other fictional series about forensics include Criminal Minds (2005--), Blue Bloods (2010--), and True Detective (2014--).
In addition to fictional series, television networks, particularly cable networks, began to present forensic science-themed documentary programs. One example is Forensic Files, which the cable network Court TV (now truTV) began airing in 2000; this program presents information from real cases, step by step from initial investigation to case resolution. Other documentaries and docuseries include Forensic Files II (2020--), Forensics: Catching the Killer (2021--), and Forensic Factor (2023--).
Misrepresentations of Forensic Science
The fictional television programs that focus attention on crime scene investigation and forensic science misrepresent these fields of study in a variety of ways. These programs frequently suggest, for example, that crime scene and forensic evidence is processed very quickly. In fact, most one-hour episodes feature anywhere from one to three crimes investigated and cleared by the police; it is rare for any crime to be left unsolved in one episode and carried over to another. The reality of forensic evidence processing is much more complex than typical television shows depict, however. Forensic evidence is not processed within sixty minutes of when it is collected or even within a week. In many states, evidence labs are so backed up that investigators must wait from six months to a year for test results that will allow them to move their cases forward.
In addition, television programs are frequently inaccurate in their depictions of the types of evidence commonly gathered at crime scenes and the types of information that evidence can reveal. For instance, such programs often feature situations in which blood, traceable DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), or some other evidence is physically left at crime scenes and is extracted by investigators for analysis. In reality, however, the discovery of traceable evidence at crime scenes is much rarer than these programs suggest. Generally, the types of evidence most frequently left at crime scenes are tool markings and fingerprints. Forensic scientists thus do not spend the majority of their time analyzing blood and DNA evidence; instead, they spend most of their time doing toxicology screens and comparing fingerprints.
Television programs that feature crime scene analysis and forensic science techniques frequently show investigators relying heavily on computer databases that provide information that aids them in their work. In reality, the power of such databases to aid investigators is limited, and much more work goes into using the databases than these shows suggest. One example is how fingerprint analysis is depicted on television. Characters on these programs are often shown running fingerprint analyses that result in single positive matches, but the reality is that an automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS) can identify only possible matches. The final matching of prints is actually the responsibility of the examiner.
Television programs often present crime scene and forensic science evidence in a way that suggests to viewers that the evidence is beyond reproach, always accurate, and never problematic. In fact, many of these programs include in their scripts positive and affirmative statements that remove the “human element” from crime scene and forensic investigation. The audience is told that the character investigators simply follow the evidence and objectively interpret the evidence. These programs rarely depict cases in which problems arise with evidence samples or with the crime labs that test the evidence. They also rarely tell stories in which the available forensic evidence fails to solve a crime. In fact, however, the human element is an important part of crime scene and forensic science. Human error and faulty practices have led to problematic test results in crime labs in several states.
The CSI Effect
The popularity of fictional television programs that feature forensic science has raised some concerns among legal scholars and practitioners regarding whether individuals who serve as jurors on criminal trials may be influenced by these programs’ depictions of crime scene investigation and forensic science. This possible influence is often referred to as the “CSI effect.” Many prosecuting attorneys have contended that jury members who are regular watchers of CSI and similar programs are likely to hold distorted beliefs about what police can do and ought to do from a forensics standpoint in preparing cases for trial, and they bring those beliefs with them into the deliberation room. From the standpoint of prosecutors, jurors’ television-based exaggerated expectations regarding forensic science make the job of obtaining criminal convictions much more difficult.
Defense attorneys, in contrast, have argued that the CSI effect is actually beneficial to prosecuting attorneys and makes the task of defending clients more difficult. Defense attorneys argue that because these programs almost always present crime scene work and forensic science as infallible, jury members are not typically aware of the potential for problems with evidence.
Only a few researchers have examined the validity of claims regarding the CSI effect. In one study, N. J. Schweitzer and Michael J. Saks examined the issue by asking mock jurors about their television viewing habits and then requiring the mock jurors to read a transcript of testimony from a forensic scientist in a case in which the evidence for conviction was weak; the jurors would be likely to return a guilty verdict only if they found the forensic science evidence believable. In this study, a higher percentage of non-CSI viewers (29 percent) stated that they would convict compared with regular CSI viewers, but the difference was not statistically significant.
Similarly, Kimberlianne Podlas examined the veracity of CSI effect claims by surveying 254 mock jurors. She found no CSI effect; that is, heavy viewers of CSI were not more likely than nonviewers to vote for acquittal because of their beliefs regarding what can be accomplished by investigators. Podlas has suggested that if there is a CSI effect, it takes the form of producing a belief in potential jury members that evidence is infallible.
In perhaps the most comprehensive study of the CSI effect undertaken to date, Donald E. Shelton, Young S. Kim, and Greg Barrak also surveyed mock jurors about their television viewing habits and willingness to convict in a variety of different types of cases. These scholars concluded that there is no relationship between viewing CSI and other forensics-related television programming and willingness to convict an offender in a case. Shelton and his colleagues have suggested that the seemingly increasing demand by criminal juries for scientific evidence may have more to do with a broader “technology effect” than with the CSI effect; that is, as society becomes more and more technologically advanced, citizens expect that technological improvements will carry over into the world of criminal investigation.
Bibliography
Christoloukas, Nikolas and Anastasia Mitsea. "The CSI Effect in Forensic Odontology: A Systematic Review." Journal of Odonto-Stomatology, vol. 40, no. 2, 1 Aug. 2022, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9942796/. Accessed 15 Aug. 2024.
Maeder, Evelyn M., and Richard Corbett. "Beyond Frequency: Perceived Realism and the CSI Effect." The Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, vol. 57, no. 1, 2015, pp. 83–114. EBSCO Legal Collection, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lgh&AN=100160912&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Accessed 30 Dec. 2016.
Podlas, Kimberlianne.“’The CSI Effect’: Exposing the Media Myth.” Fordham Intellectual Property, Media, and Entertainment Law Journal, vol. 16. (Winter 2006), pp. 429–65.
Schweitzer, N. J., and Michael J. Saks. “The CSI Effect: Popular Fiction About Forensic Science Affects Public Expectations About Real Forensic Science.” Jurimetrics, vol. 47, 2007, pp. 357–64.
Shelton, Donald E., Young S. Kim, and Greg Barrak. “A Study of Juror Expectations and Demands: Does the ’CSI Effect’ Exist?” Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, vol. 9, no. 2, 2006, pp. 331–68.
Tyler, Tom R. “Viewing CSI and the Threshold of Guilt: Managing Truth and Justice in Reality and Fiction.” Yale Law Journal, vol. 115, no. 5, 2006, pp. 1050–85.