Communication Across Cultures: Evidence, Popular Culture, and the CSI Effect

COMMUNICATION ACROSS CULTURES

Communication Across Cultures

Evidence, Popular Culture, and the “CSI Effect”

“We’ve got a match.” If you’ve ever watched CSI or any of its several spin-offs, you know that those words are usually the clincher in a comparison of evidence from the murder scene to something belonging to a suspect—be it DNA, carpet fibers, or bullets. The popular procedural drama is based on the premise that stalwart and brilliant teams of forensic scientists can and will work tirelessly to find and present evidence that indisputably solves crimes.

In fact, most of the evidence presented by the show’s crime scene investigators is far from indisputable, and the show’s portrayal of forensic science is sometimes closer to science fiction than science fact. Fiber evidence, for example, can be examined for possible connections, but no scientist would be able to testify under oath that a specific fiber came from a specific vehicle. Only DNA evidence really comes close to what most scientists would consider mathematical certainty (Toobin, 2007). The show also misleads juries about the technology available to prosecutors—much of the technology shown is beyond the reach of most departments or simply does not exist—as well as the time frame for obtaining results (Toobin, 2007). Mike Murphy, the Las Vegas coroner whose lab was the inspiration for the original CSI show, explains that “people expect us to have DNA back in 20 minutes or that we’re supposed to solve a crime in 60 minutes with three commercials. It doesn’t happen that way” (Rath, 2011).

Some legal scholars worry that the popularity of shows like CSI may bias juries in several ways. There is a possibility that jurors who follow the shows believe they have developed some level of expertise about forensic evidence or, at the very least, some expectation that the kinds of evidence presented on CSI will be available for every case, a theory that has become known as the “CSI effect.” Although there is no evidence that watching such programs has any impact on trial outcomes, there are some indications that watching these shows may influence the way jurors perceive the quality of police work in investigations as well as their behavior during deliberations (Rath, 2011; Thomas, 2006).

Think About This

  1. Do you watch police procedurals like CSI? How realistic do you think they are? Does popular culture have an impact on how individuals perceive evidence or detective work? Do you think you would be a more sophisticated juror than someone who doesn’t watch such shows?

    Question

    46O/GvlXlao=
    Do you watch police procedurals like CSI? How realistic do you think they are? Does popular culture have an impact on how individuals perceive evidence or detective work? Do you think you would be a more sophisticated juror than someone who doesn’t watch such shows?
  2. If you were on a jury in a criminal trial, what would your expectations for evidence be? Would you be willing to convict someone based on a fiber sample, even if the expert witness described it as “similar” rather than “a match”?

    Question

    46O/GvlXlao=
    If you were on a jury in a criminal trial, what would your expectations for evidence be? Would you be willing to convict someone based on a fiber sample, even if the expert witness described it as “similar” rather than “a match”?
  3. Do you think that shows like CSI have an ethical responsibility to depict forensic science more realistically? Or is it the audience’s responsibility to separate entertainment from reality?

    Question

    46O/GvlXlao=
    Do you think that shows like CSI have an ethical responsibility to depict forensic science more realistically? Or is it the audience’s responsibility to separate entertainment from reality?