No one could have foreseen the influence the TV series CSI: Crime Scene Investigation would have on our legal system. Experts and members of the academe attribute the distorted perception of the audience on the flawless nature of forensic science. They have coined this phenomenon as the CSI Effect. In reality, forensic science is not entirely objective nor is it 100% accurate. There is always a risk of contamination of the pieces of evidence to be analyzed. There is no way to totally eradicate human error in every experiment or analysis. In the recreation and understanding of what might have happened, forensic experts do inject their own interpretation of the laboratory results and analyses. Now it is possible that given the same sample evidence and lab analysis, two experts may formulate different and contradicting version of events.
Audiences also tend to believe it's possible to get results from the laboratory in just a wink of an eye. This is very inconsistent with what happens in the real world. It actually takes weeks or even months to make a concrete analysis of a given sample. It is thus far from possible to consolidate and analyze data from a crime scene within 24 to 48 hours only.
The CSI Effect has seeped its way into the court room, most specifically among jurors. One of Britain's pathologist said that due to the television series, "jurors today expect more categorical proof than forensic science is capable of delivering... jurors think they have a thorough understanding of science they have seen presented on television, when they do not." For example, there is no such thing as a 100% forensic match and this applies to DNA profiling and matching as well. In matching DNA, what geneticists present is the likelihood of a coincidental match the probability of finding a person in a given population that has the same DNA profile as that of the subject's. It is this statistical data that is subjected to interpretation by the prosecutors and the defense. There are also several technical terms that should be explained to the jurors, like the difference between a match probability and a likelihood ratio. And most importantly, what the jurors must understand is that DNA evidence should not be the sole basis for their judgment. The presence of the defendant's DNA in the crime scene does not automatically prove his guilt. This finding must be corroborated with other evidence to make it even more reliable.
On the other hand, there were some instances wherein the CSI Effect had produced positive results. In one murder trial in the UK, the jurors asked the judge to have the cigarette butt found in the crime scene tested. This was to find out if it was indeed linked to the defendant. It happened that the defense did order the tests but those were not introduced into evidence. Laboratory results found no apparent link to the defendant. Therefore he was exonerated and acquitted.
There is no doubt to the fact that the TV Series CSI and its spin offs have greatly affected the public's understanding of forensic science. The audience is informed on the importance of forensic science in investigations. However the series has also implanted in the audience's minds unrealistic expectations that forensics is not capable of meeting.
Audiences also tend to believe it's possible to get results from the laboratory in just a wink of an eye. This is very inconsistent with what happens in the real world. It actually takes weeks or even months to make a concrete analysis of a given sample. It is thus far from possible to consolidate and analyze data from a crime scene within 24 to 48 hours only.
The CSI Effect has seeped its way into the court room, most specifically among jurors. One of Britain's pathologist said that due to the television series, "jurors today expect more categorical proof than forensic science is capable of delivering... jurors think they have a thorough understanding of science they have seen presented on television, when they do not." For example, there is no such thing as a 100% forensic match and this applies to DNA profiling and matching as well. In matching DNA, what geneticists present is the likelihood of a coincidental match the probability of finding a person in a given population that has the same DNA profile as that of the subject's. It is this statistical data that is subjected to interpretation by the prosecutors and the defense. There are also several technical terms that should be explained to the jurors, like the difference between a match probability and a likelihood ratio. And most importantly, what the jurors must understand is that DNA evidence should not be the sole basis for their judgment. The presence of the defendant's DNA in the crime scene does not automatically prove his guilt. This finding must be corroborated with other evidence to make it even more reliable.
On the other hand, there were some instances wherein the CSI Effect had produced positive results. In one murder trial in the UK, the jurors asked the judge to have the cigarette butt found in the crime scene tested. This was to find out if it was indeed linked to the defendant. It happened that the defense did order the tests but those were not introduced into evidence. Laboratory results found no apparent link to the defendant. Therefore he was exonerated and acquitted.
There is no doubt to the fact that the TV Series CSI and its spin offs have greatly affected the public's understanding of forensic science. The audience is informed on the importance of forensic science in investigations. However the series has also implanted in the audience's minds unrealistic expectations that forensics is not capable of meeting.
About the Author:
TV series CSI has become one of the most influential television shows today. It has extremely affected people's view of forensic science.
No comments:
Post a Comment