Further to the CSI Effect

Gwenda points to this article in yesterday’s Washington Post, which picks up on what’s become a rather disturbing phenomenon in the judicial process: jurors expecting forensic evidence to be in every trial and to be just like in those TV shows they watch:

A Prince George’s County jury would not convict a man accused

of stabbing his girlfriend to death because a half-eaten hamburger,

recovered from the crime scene and assumed to have been his, was not

tested for DNA.

In the District, a jury deadlocked

recently in the trial of a woman accused of stabbing another woman

because fingerprints on the weapon did not belong to the suspect. An

Alexandria jury acquitted a man on drug-possession charges in part

because a box containing 60 rocks of crack cocaine that he was accused

of tossing from his car during a traffic stop was not tested for

fingerprints.

Prosecutors say jurors are telling them they expect forensic evidence

in criminal cases, just like on their favorite television shows,

including “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.” In real life, forensic

evidence is not collected at every crime scene, either because

criminals clean up after themselves or because of a shortage in

resources. Yet, increasingly, jurors are reluctant to convict someone

without it, a phenomenon the criminal justice community is calling the

“CSI effect.”

“There is an increased and unrealistic expectation that every

crime scene will yield plentiful forensic evidence,” said Alexandria

Commonwealth’s Attorney S. Randolph Sengel, who talked to jurors after

the drug trial. “As a result, we spend time now explaining to juries

the absence of evidence.” And when interviewing potential jurors,

Sengel said, he and his team of prosecutors have “recently taken to

reminding them that this is not ‘CSI.’ “

The shows

have had an effect on courtrooms nationwide, according to lawyers,

judges and jurors. Some prosecutors are calling experts to the witness

stand simply to explain to juries why forensic evidence might be

absent. Defense lawyers are exploiting the lack of scientific proof to

plant doubt, even when there are eyewitness accounts, confessions or

other compelling evidence.

Somewhere, my former prof is probably banging his head against the proverbial wall. 

Of course, I suppose it’s to be expected, which underscores just how important efforts like the Crime Lab Project are: because as long as forensic labs remain underfunded and understaffed, the backlogs will get bigger, fewer pieces of evidence will be analyzed (because it may take years between evidence collection and analysis) and solve rates will go way, way down.

Ultimately a large-scale education initiative has to take place which stresses the following: the only evidence that should be talked about, in a courtroom or wherever, is relevant evidence in context. If there’s no reason to test for DNA, or if by doing so it actually contributes in a negative manner, then it won’t be done, no matter what happens on CSI. It’s great that juries are paying attention to evidence, but it’s only the beginning; because evidence in a vacuum can be just as damaging as no evidence at all.

Then again, I could be feeling cranky because  I was asked recently

to impart wisdom on the field to a college-bound local, about to start

at one of the zillions of new programs that’s sprung up in the 4 years

since I began my own grad degree. And I could tell that I wasn’t

getting through; why would I, when I kept stressing that it’s important

to train in the basic sciences like biology, chemistry and physics? And

that being a forensic scientist really wasn’t that much different than

being a traditional lab rat, especially on the biology or chemistry

side? Or that I expressed total surprise that forensic concepts would

be introduced in freshman year, likely dumbed down and without relevant

value?

Never mind that she seemed utterly shocked by my admission that I was essentially out of the field. Even if I still harbor faint hopes of making use of my degree in something resembling its original context someday…

But I didn’t want to sugarcoat things, and it does worry me that so

many people are jumping into forensic science programs, especially at the undergraduate level, based on the

coolness quotient. But if John Jay was any indication, those that

really have the chops to stick around (case in point: half of my original class

dropped out after the first year, and only half of the remaining

students have since received their M.S. degrees) will do so, and the rest will move onto other things.  Mostly because the demand shows no signs whatsoever of meeting the supply, and likely never will, if my experience was anything to go by.

And I suppose, in a strange way, I’m waiting for the bubble to burst, and for forensic science to be seen as the serious scientific discipline it really is instead of something cool to try, and something that breeds unrealistic expectations by clueless jurors.