Read the passage below and check your comprehension by answering the following questions. Then “submit” your work.
“We’ve got a match.” If you have 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. Inspired by real-life forensics scientists, show creator Anthony Zuiker wanted to “make science cool and fun for America” (Boniello, 2015). American audiences have tuned in to watch the brilliant teams of fictional forensic scientists work tirelessly to find and present evidence that indisputably solves crimes.
The trouble is that 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 (Clements; 2015). 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 and prosecutors worry that the popularity of shows like CSI may bias American juries in what they call the “CSI effect” (Clements, 2015). Jurors who follow the shows may believe they have developed a level of expertise about forensic evidence, expect the availability of CSI-like evidence in every case, and believe that such evidence is the only acceptable kind of proof of a person’s guilt (Boniello, 2015).