Today I read the above article which reviews the so called "CSI effect". An often discussed issue at forensic science conferences this article summarises some occurrences of juries being effected disproportionately by their watching of crime shows on the TV, but also refers to (and this is something I get asked about frequently in my lectures) the affect upon criminals themselves.
Another issue mentioned that I cover in my workshops is that the prevalence of fingerprints and DNA at crime scenes is actually much lower than that suggested by CSi shows, with prosecutors often now having to use expert witnesses to testify to the fact that it is not unusual for these types of evidence not to be present in a criminal investigation.
One Jury even goes so far as to claim disappointment when a computerised re-enactment of the events was not presented (something I'm sure companies like Acume Forensics will be glad to hear). The downside to these comments was the appearance of such negative opinions towards the justice system leading to longer trials and more aquitals in what would normally be routine cases.
It is no secret that television shows such as CSi are watched by pretty much everyone ( though many of my colleagues would deny it), unfortunately this "everyone" includes would-be criminals and would-be perpetrators of serious crimes. This has been documented for example to have led to a significant increase in the use of bleach to destroy DNA evidence at murder scenes (and perhaps more horrifically on victims of sexual assault). Whilst I personally do not think that shows like CSI have led to more criminals wearing gloves (Forensic science entertainment has been popular for a long time and criminals have known about fingerprints for a long time, yet we still find them at scenes), some obvious evidence types are now more infrequent, such as DNA on envelopes, or poor attempts to destroy evidence by fire.
Whilst the crux of the article is based upon the context of the legal environment, there is a discussion upon the effect of upon academia, specifically the encouragement of students into the area. The glamorised portrayal of many aspects of the job overlooks the monotonous and at times tedious daily routine undergone by most forensic scientists. As one of my mentors can often be found starting one of his lectures, Forensic scientists don't carry a gun and they certainly don't wear sunglasses. (Though the morbid sense of humour is pretty spot on). The article goes on to portray this encouragement as a good ting for future generations to see science as a sexy career choice, however I disagree, whilst I obviously am a huge fan of encouraging pupils to carry out science related courses, I think that effectively deceiving them in this way is dishonest, and in my experience many students do not become aware of the realities (monotonous jobs, in highly competitive positions) until they are half way though expense undergraduate courses. Perhaps this falls under the responsibility of the academic institutes and employers themselves to correct this failure of the market? Should academic institutes train the scientists that are needed by employers and society or should they let the students themselves decide what roles are needed prior to actually receiving any science training and just meet the demand without any concern for the consequences to the individuals?
I can conclude by recommending to anyone with an interest in the objective effect of CSI shows on the industry to have a read of the article. But in case you don't I have picked out some of my favourite so-called CSI-Myths...
1. If you put an unprepared concentrated viscous pigmented substance (such as paint) into a GC/MS system, you will receive a print out with the manufacturer and model within a few minutes.
A huge understatement of the work required to analyse and interpret such substances.
2. You can search for any kind of product on police databases such as tyre marks, coffee and soil samples.
These databases when they do exist only contain the evidence input by the police agencies themselves, though in some instances real life is starting to catch up on that portrayed in CSi like the Treadmark footwear database.
3. CSIs question witnesses.
CSIs are scientists, not detectives.
4. A forensic scientist is well versed and capable to report on all types of forensic evidence, from firearms, to illicit substances, DNA, and fingerprints.
Whilst we may have an interest in all, an expert witness is not allowed to extent beyond the realms of their speciality, which when known in depth is more than enough to solely occupy ones time.
& to paraphrase once again, "it can all be wrapped up in 45 minutes including advert breaks"
It probably could if every police force had the same budget as a CSI episode for each case to be solved. In many cases the technology exists, in the same way that the technology exists to visit the moon...we just don't do it.
I hope you enjoyed reading that as much as I enjoyed writing it, whilst I have paraphrased others any mistakes and all opinions expressed are my own.
Please leave a comment
Phil
I very much enjoyed reading about it. To be honest, speaking from someone who is not in the forensic field you have opened my eyes to a lot of the assumptions I make based on t.v.
ReplyDeletethanks for de-bunking some myths.
Glad you liked it :-)
ReplyDeleteHey!
ReplyDeleteTo begin with - use a lower size fonts! I can't read your post.
Plus: a larger image as background would look better.