The CSI Effect: The Ree(a)lity Bites

Suspect: You won't be able to prove a thing
Horatio Caine: That is a really dumb thing to say to a CSI.

Every time I watch the re-runs of the prime-time series like Crime Scene Investigation-CSI and its spin-offs like CSI- Miami and New York, Criminal Minds, Bones or Dexter, the much used ADIDAS catch-phrase flits across my mind.

These new-age fictional forensic investigators and experts are the modern day Gladiators who make Mr. Holmes look like an average sleuth with a fortuitous Kismet.

Unlike their age-old swashbuckling doppelgangers these “geeks” with their au courant technical know-how wielding expertise in areas like DNA testing, Finger-print analysis, Blood-stain splatter analysis, Forensic Anthropology, Fiber analysis et all, can practically crack any case wide open however Herculean the task may seem to be. The ease with which they make in-roads into their investigations and by-pass sticky corners and the precision with which the plots are depicted is perhaps their greatest selling point, which successfully captivates the imagination of an average TV viewer to sit through the 60 odd minute dramas with utter fascination and rapt attention.

The turn of the century saw an enormous increase of television series in the genre of “Legal Drama” “Detective Stories” “Cop Stories” and ilk, to the exclusion of other dramas. This has over the years proved that television viewing is predominated by these cult “geeks” who almost always put the “bad-guy” behind bars. It is perhaps an ingenious trick on the part of the television producers to show real life issues like law &order, crime &justice minus the tedium of time & place and the dreary legal nitty-gritty thus making these issues appeal to the popular TV culture across the globe.

”Crime Scene Investigation” made its debut in 2000. The series revolved around a motley group of forensic scientists who gathered forensic evidence from the scene of crime and used “hi-tech magic” to solve it. Unlike the much abused television protagonists with super-human abilities and off-the-charts IQ fighting against ‘evil’ of the world, from a decade earlier, appreciation for the CSI franchise and kind caught on like wild-fire amongst the audience over the globe. The reason perhaps was the extensively researched stories, hi-tech mumbo jumbo, detailing, the stress on science and its use to solve crime brought forth a new dimension to fighting crime.

It has been noted that over the years of telecasting these highly-acclaimed series, the exaggerated crime plots, ingenuous crime solving methods, sophisticated technology, highly specialized techniques and the inexactitude of legal procedure which form the basic tenet of these dramas has by and large deluded the perception of the public about real life crime & justice. The serious repercussion of these ‘glorified’ television drama on the reliability of a criminal trial was noticed especially amongst the jury members in the American Legal system.

Popularly dubbed as the “CSI Effect” after the CBS’s hit tv-series Crime Scene Investigation-CSI, it was alleged that the viewing of television dramas of this genre was affecting the jury’s observation and thought process heavily. It was asserted that the prodigious manner in which evidence was procured and the Shangri-laesque capabilities of the forensic experts had in fact led to skewed notions in the jurors’ mind about the present day abilities of the criminal justice system and policing techniques in America. Thereby their heightened expectations constantly diminished the value of circumstantial evidence. Moreover the demand for more and more forensic evidence in a criminal trial has led to undue pressure on the forensic labs and the available technical knowledge.

To understand the pressing consequences caused by the distorted and biased perception of the jury one has to understand the pre-eminence of the jury in the American Legal System. The jury system in America is the basic tenet of its legal framework. As quoted by an eminent jurist it is “No mere procedural formality, but a fundamental reservation of power of the constitutional structure”. Even though it is argued that the media influence tends distort the views of the jurors and make them biased on certain issues, to the extent that it influences their deliberations during a criminal prosecution, it is still held to be the fundamental aspect of the American legal system in order to deliver justice

The term “CSI effect” was first used in an article in the TIMES magazine in 2002. It essentially was coined to refer to the misguided perception of the public resulting from inaccurate and unreliable portrayal of forensic science and its uses in these television dramas. It was asserted that the ‘Effect’ mainly gave rise to two situations amongst the jury members. On one hand was that the jurors had started expecting more forensic evidence than what was necessary for the case at hand, thereby acquitting people for the lack of enough evidence in a number of cases. On the other, they started relying heavily on forensic evidence as a primary proof and negating the probative value of circumstantial evidence or even eyewitness reports to a large extent. This in turn led to an increase in conviction whenever there was forensic evidence present.

In a recent study conducted by a group of American Psychologists it was shown that the basic premise of such TV-series that “Science pervades all aspects of life and is the ultimate truth” was perhaps the fundamental reason for influencing the minds of millions of its viewers. Though arguably bias created by media influence was always an issue during the voir-dire, but the veracity of science and scientific techniques has always been an unquestioned fact for the common man. The stress laid on DNA testing and Finger-print analysis and other such devices to gather evidence in these programs has effortlessly created a deceptive impression on its audience about real life police techniques and legal methodology. The viewer easily forgets the distinct but thin divide between the real and reel crime solving, that though the use of scientific devices used is certainly advantageous but the reliability and accuracy of these techniques are still a major question in the scientific fraternity.

The CSI effect is not a novel phenomenon in the American Legal System. The “Perry Mason Syndrome” borne out of a cult TV-series “Perry Mason” in 1960s had also managed to create a tumult amongst the jury and defendants. Adapted from the best-seller author Earle Stanley Gardner’s detective novels, Perry Mason was a shrewd defense attorney who always managed to get a confession out of the criminal in full court. The simplicity of the proceedings depicted in these trials led to misconceived notions amongst the jury about the legal procedure of the court and defendants had started to underestimate their predicament in a number of ways.

What is glaringly evident from this situation is that the public generally lacks faith in the law and its procedures and that they are willing to trust ‘science’ unequivocally for justice to be delivered. One has to also understand that the amount of research the plots of these big productions undergo, one cannot help but palate the ensuing product as anything but authentic. And even though these programs might have a firm basis in reality, yet the assumption that all that they depict is cent percent accurate and reliable is perhaps the biggest folly committed by its audience.

So when the mysterious and unimpeachable Horatio Caine (protagonist of CSI: Miami) says it is down right foolhardy to believe that the CSI will not be able to crack a case at hand…vociferous fans of the show like me, do tend to give him the benefit, a tad bit more than is required! Alas! Real doesn’t always emulate the Reel.