The CSI Effect

In yesterday’s post about the Melbourne Writer’s Festival, the topic naturally turned to the age old question of whether the PI genre is dead and what’s allegedly replacing it. Obviously, PI isn’t anywhere near rigor mortis, but the trend of describing every nuance of rigor, and then some, is growing ever popular. Laura Lippman brought up a recent article about the dangers of the CSI-ification of society; essentially, more juries are expecting to see the same kind of flash and splash they do on TV, and when they don’t, they are more likely to acquit:

“Talking about science in the courtroom used to be like talking about geometry — a real jury turnoff,” says Hirschhorn, of Lewisville, Texas. “Now that there’s this almost obsession with the (TV) shows, you can talk to jurors about (scientific evidence) and just see from the looks on their faces that they find it fascinating.”

But some defense lawyers say CSI and similar shows make jurors rely too heavily on scientific findings and unwilling to accept that those findings can be compromised by human or technical errors.

Prosecutors also have complaints: They say the shows can make it more difficult for them to win convictions in the large majority of cases in which scientific evidence is irrelevant or absent.

“The lesson that both sides can agree on is, what’s on TV does seep into the minds of jurors,” says Paul Walsh, chief prosecutor in New Bedford, Mass., and president of the National District Attorneys Association. “Jurors are going to have information, or what they think is information, in mind. That’s the new state of affairs.”

As many readers know, I completed my Master’s in forensic science earlier this year, and what I learned had a direct impact on my thoughts on the CSI Universe. While I think any and all exposure the field gets is ultimately positive, there are dangers afoot because of oversimplification, whether on TV or in crime novels, and because of how this oversimplification can be interpreted by the general public.

In terms of juries, acquittals based on faulty understanding of the scientific principles as presented is potentially frightening; especially if the evidence actually demonstrates some proof of guilt, but not to the level expected, and with equipment that’s only available in fantasy land or in the dealer room at forensic science conventions where the likelihood of ever being used for evidence is slim to none at best. There are no magic bullets, no instant answers, no lightning fast turnaround times. It would be great if DNA tests could take an hour, if a match could actually be 100% absolute. And if people could distinguish between fiction and reality.

But having said that, I can’t help but wonder at those certified as forensic experts in court. Are they clearly explaining the pitfalls and disadvantages to jurors in clear language? Are they tempering their words as they should, or falling into the trap of TV-based expectations? Do they explain why, in certain situations, physical evidence isn’t available or relevant? (Example: Kobe Bryant, where a DNA test cannot ever show whether sex was forced or consensual. There isn’t a genetic marker for such things, and there never will be.) If juries expect more, then expert witness have to work around these increased expectations and make their presentations even more confident than they would have been otherwise.

I wonder when the appetite for forensic science will abate. The number of schools on the graduate and undergraduate level have increased at near-exponential levels in the last few years, meaning more people competing for the same number of jobs. Resources are getting stretched even thinner, and the case backlog is growing higher because there’s little funding for improvement (which is why initiatives like the Crime Lab Project are so important.) Worst of all, something my former professor warned of may be coming true–that the forensic sciences are increasingly based in technical detail and automation and losing out on those who can contextualize the evidence within a larger framework. (Which is why situations like this one occur.)

So what does all this have to do with crime fiction? Simply that forensic science, at least with the popularity it currently possesses, is a fad. Technology gets obsolete very quickly; the basic elements of plot/character/setting/story, if done well, almost never do. Which another reason why I’m much more likely to forgive writing-related flaws than forensic-related ones.