The CSI Effect: TV Forensics vs. Real Criminal Justice

Introduction: CSI and the Rise of Forensic Science Interest

CSI and its offshoots, CSI: Miami and CSI: New York, are popular American television dramas. The show premiered in 2000, and since then, interest in forensics, forensic science, and criminal justice in general has increased noticeably. The effects are evident not only in the United States but also in other countries. At one university in the United Kingdom, forensic science is now the most popular major on campus, with 400 students enrolled — up from just four in 1999, the year prior to the airing of the first CSI episode. Clearly, the media is having a major impact on the ways the general public perceives crime, criminal investigations, and the procedures of criminal justice.

In the television show, a large cast of characters plays different roles within the Las Vegas Police Department. None of the main characters are police officers, lawyers, or any other conventional member of the criminal justice team. Rather, the show focuses exclusively on its titular topic: crime scene investigation. Crime scene investigation involves the gathering and analyzing of data from the scene of a crime. Although it goes by different names in different departments and countries, crime scene investigation is a critical component of solving crimes and achieving justice. Criminal justice attorneys do not typically interact directly with crime scene investigators, but they do receive the results of their work and use those results to build their cases.

How CSI Depicts Crime Scene Investigation

The television show depicts everything from a forensic entomologist — who specializes in the use of insects to determine cause and time of death — to blood spatter experts, whose knowledge of trajectories and the nature of blood can determine how an attack took place. Each specialist tends to have a defined area of expertise, although some characters serve in broader departmental roles. The supervisory positions, such as those held by the lead characters played by Ted Danson and Elisabeth Shue, are the most notably managerial in nature. With the possible exception that most "CSIs don't wear high heels to crime scenes," the characters are fairly accurate portraits of the type of work performed by forensic scientists on specific cases (Stanton, 2009).

A crime scene typically involves gathering evidence in a systematic way, and as quickly as possible, to ensure the evidence is not tampered with or allowed to deteriorate. This is why warrants are needed rapidly and can be fast-tracked. Crime scene investigators usually arrive ready to record what they observe and to collect evidence in ways that preserve its integrity. For example, any item that can be brought to the lab is not touched directly by the investigator but is carefully handled using tweezers or other tools before being transported to the evidence lab. Many investigators methodically take photographs and write notes recording their impressions when at the scene of the crime. Sometimes a video record is also required. Investigators often work in zones or grids to ensure that every inch of the scene has been covered (Layton, n.d.). All of these methods of gathering evidence are depicted relatively accurately on the show.

Inaccuracies in Forensic Science Portrayal

There are some inaccuracies, naturally, in the depiction of crime scene investigation and criminal justice more broadly. The television show is designed to wrap up neatly within an episode, which rarely happens in the real world. Cases are sometimes backlogged for an inordinate period of time as investigators wait for evidence to return from laboratories. The show does not accurately depict these backlogs or other grim realities that investigators face. A lack of resources is a major issue in American criminal investigations. As many as "200,000–300,000 backlogged DNA samples in U.S. labs" have been cited (Rincon, 2005). One English commentator observed, "There's more money spent in this country on holistic medicine than there is on forensic science research" (Rincon, 2005). The show could therefore do a better job of exploring the resource constraints that criminal investigators, law enforcement professionals, and criminal lawyers face in the course of their work. Moreover, CSI does not explain many of the detailed realities of how investigators actually carry out their duties.

The CSI Effect on Juries and Criminal Justice

In short, forensics is not as reliable as CSI leads its viewers to believe. This problem has given rise to what is known as the "CSI Effect" — a phenomenon in which jurors in actual criminal cases make decisions to acquit a suspect based on their expectations of forensic evidence shaped by television. Defense attorneys have begun exploiting the CSI Effect in their favor, suggesting to juries that there were insufficient fingerprints at the scene, or that the blood spatter evidence was inconclusive, in order to sway the verdict. Research shows that "some televised depictions of law enforcement can influence people's beliefs about the legal system," and the CSI Effect may indeed be contributing to "an epidemic of unjustified acquittals" (Podlas, 2007).

The flip side of this issue is that prosecuting attorneys may need to do a better job of informing juries about the limitations of forensic evidence, explicitly addressing the CSI Effect alongside the facts and merits of the case. At the same time, juror demand for forensic evidence is not inherently negative. Hearsay, unreliable witnesses, and cognitive biases can too often lead to wrongful convictions. When a jury demands solid forensic evidence before reaching a verdict, that impulse should be viewed as a positive development rather than a problem.

Conclusion: CSI's Broader Impact on Public Perception

Cases are handled on CSI with far more speed and organization than they would be in a real criminal justice department. The department is idealized, as is the field of forensic science itself. Some of the significant challenges that criminal justice professionals face are not addressed on the show at all. Because producers need to attract viewers with compelling and exaggerated characters, CSI incorporates considerably more personal drama than would be evident in real-life investigative work.

There may also be fewer women working in criminal justice in reality than the show suggests — CSI depicts numerous female characters working alongside their male counterparts as though the system harbors no gender bias. In doing so, the show makes a meaningful statement about how law enforcement might change its organizational culture for the better, presenting a diverse group of people working together harmoniously in pursuit of justice. Whatever its inaccuracies, CSI has sparked genuine public interest in forensic science and raised important questions about how the criminal justice system operates — even if the picture it paints is far rosier than the reality.

References

Gildea, J. (n.d.). America falls for the 'CSI Effect.' The Daily Cardinal. Retrieved from http://truthinjustice.org/CSI-effect.htm

Layton, J. (n.d.). How crime scene investigation works. Retrieved from http://science.howstuffworks.com/csi6.htm

Podlas, K. (2007). The 'CSI Effect' and other forensic fictions. 27 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 87 (2006–2007).

Reagan, B. (2009). CSI myths: The shaky science behind forensics. Popular Mechanics. Retrieved from http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a4535/4325774/

Rincon, P. (2005). CSI shows give 'unrealistic view.' BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4284335.stm

Stanton, D. (2009). Probing question: Is forensic science on TV accurate? Penn State News. Retrieved from http://news.psu.edu/story/141207/2009/11/10/research/probing-question-forensic-science-tv-accurate