{"id":48892,"date":"2016-09-04T14:32:09","date_gmt":"2016-09-04T21:32:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/?p=48892"},"modified":"2016-09-04T14:32:09","modified_gmt":"2016-09-04T21:32:09","slug":"the-csi-effect","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/index.php\/2016\/09\/the-csi-effect\/","title":{"rendered":"The CSI Effect"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"pf-content\"><div class=\"highlighter\">The following is an article from <em><a rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"http:\/\/www.bathroomreader.com\/\" target=\"_blank\">Uncle John\u2019s Bathroom Reader<\/a><\/em><\/div>\n<p><em>How real are the TV shows that focus on police and lawyers? A few go all out for accuracy, while others get laughed at by the professions they portray. But they\u2019ve all had an impact on society\u2026both positive and negative.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/crime-scene.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright size-medium wp-image-48893\" src=\"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/crime-scene-340x227.png\" alt=\"crime scene\" width=\"340\" height=\"227\" srcset=\"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/crime-scene-340x227.png 340w, http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/crime-scene-768x512.png 768w, http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/crime-scene-640x427.png 640w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 340px) 100vw, 340px\" \/><\/a><strong>FAMILIAR FORMULA<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>If there were no cops, prosecutors, or defense attorneys, the television airwaves would probably be far less crowded. Over the past 60 years, these professions have dominated primetime schedules. Why? They all offer formulas ready-made for drama: A brand-new conflict is presented to the protagonists each week, promising to be full of mystery, intrigue, and\u2026predictability. Viewers can rely on the fact that near the end of the viewing hour, one crucial piece of evidence will appear and lead to the capture of the elusive killer, or to the acquittal of the wrongly accused defendant. Then comes the philosophical musing that wraps everything up neatly, providing a clean slate for next week\u2019s episode.<\/p>\n<p>Real life is rarely so cut-and-dried. And while some may argue that cop and lawyer shows are merely entertainment, actual cops and lawyers claim these shows can make their already-difficult jobs even harder.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JURORS\u2019 PRUDENCE<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The \u201cCSI effect\u201d occurs primarily inside the courtroom. Its first incarnation was referred to as the Perry Mason effect, based on the popular fictional defense attorney\u2019s trademark ability to clear his client by coercing the guilty party into confessing on the witness stand. During Mason\u2019s TV heyday, from the 1950s to the \u201880s, many prosecutors complained that juries were hesitant to convict defendants without that \u201cPerry Mason moment\u201d of a confession on the stand\u2014which in real life is very, very rare.<\/p>\n<p>After Perry Mason went off the air, a new kind of law enforcement program appeared: the scientific police procedural (which started with Quincy, M.E., a drama about a crime-solving medical examiner that aired from 1976 to \u201883). But few cop shows have matched the success of <em>CSI: Crime Scene Investigation<\/em>, which debuted in 2000 and has spawned two successful spin-offs. A 2006 TV ratings study in 20 countries named CSI \u201cthe most watched show in the world.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>MYTH-CONCEPTIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Along with similar shows such as <em>NCIS<\/em>, <em>Diagnosis: Murder<\/em>, and <em>Bones<\/em>, <em>CSI<\/em> focuses on forensic evidence and lab work as the primary means of catching killers. These dramas may be \u201cripped from the headlines,\u201d but when it comes to telling an entertaining story, certain liberties must be taken by the writers:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Experts who perform scientific analyses are rarely the same people who do the detective work and make arrests, unlike TV where one team tackles every aspect of the investigation. (And few real forensic scientists ever drive a Hummer to a crime scene.)<\/li>\n<li>The almost instant turnaround of DNA tests is what TV writers refer to as a \u201ctime cheat,\u201d a trick necessary to get the story wrapped up. In reality, due to the screening, extraction, and replication processes (not to mention the backlog), DNA tests can take months. And the results are rarely, if ever, 100% conclusive.<\/li>\n<li>Just about every murder investigation on TV leads to an arrest and conviction. In the real world, less than half of these cases are solved.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>\u201cIf you really portrayed what crime scene investigators do,\u201d said Jay Siegel, a professor of forensic science at Michigan State University, \u201cthe show would die after three episodes because it would be so boring.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>SHOW ME THE SCIENCE<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The main problem caused by the CSI effect: Juries now expect conclusive forensic evidence. According to Staff Sergeant Peter Abi-Rashed, a homicide detective from Hamilton, Ontario, \u201cJuries are asking, \u2018Can we convict without DNA evidence?\u2019 Of course they can. It\u2019s called good, old-fashioned police work and overwhelming circumstantial evidence.\u201d In the worst-case scenarios, guilty people may be set free because a jury wasn\u2019t impressed with evidence that\u2014as recently as the 1990s\u2014would have led to a conviction. In fact, many forensic experts find themselves on the stand explaining to a jury why they don\u2019t have scientific evidence. Some lawyers have even started asking potential jurors if they watch <em>CSI<\/em>. If so, they may have to be reeducated.<\/p>\n<p>Shellie Samuels, the lead prosecutor in the 2005 Robert Blake murder trial, probably wishes that her jury had been asked beforehand if they were <em>CSI<\/em> fans. Samuels tried to convince them that Blake, a former TV cop himself (on Baretta), shot and killed his wife in 2001. Samuels illustrated Blake\u2019s motive; she presented 70 witnesses who testified against him, including two who stated\u2014under oath\u2014that Blake had asked them to kill his wife. Seems like a lock for a conviction, right? Wrong. \u201cThey couldn\u2019t put the gun in his hand,\u201d said jury foreman Thomas Nicholson, who along with his peers acquitted Blake. \u201cThere was no blood spatter. They had nothing.\u201d The verdict sent a clear message throughout the legal community: Juries will convict only on solid forensic evidence.<\/p>\n<p>This new trend affects cops, too. CSI-watching detectives tend to put unrealistic pressure on crime scene investigators not only to find solid evidence, but also to give them immediate results. Henry Lee, chief emeritus of Connecticut\u2019s state crime lab (and perhaps the world\u2019s most famous forensics scientist), says that, much to the dismay of the police, his investigators can\u2019t provide \u201cmiracle proof\u201d just by scattering some \u201cmagic dust\u201d on a crime scene. And there is no machine\u2014not even at the best-equipped lab in the country\u2014in which you can place a hair in at one end and pull a picture of a suspect out of the other. \u201cAnd our type of work always has a backlog,\u201d laments Lee, who\u2019s witnessed the amount of evidence turned in to his lab rise from about five pieces per crime scene in the 1980s to anywhere from 50 to 400 today.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MIRANDA WRONGS<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The CSI effect doesn\u2019t stop at science\u2014the entire judicial process is being presented in a misleading fashion. Mary Flood, editor of a Web site called <em>The Legal Pad<\/em>, asked a dozen prominent criminal lawyers to rate the most popular shows. Her findings:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Generally, they hate it when <em>Law &amp; Order\u2019<\/em>s Jack McCoy extracts confessions in front of speechless defense lawyers. Not real, they say. They go nuts over the <em>CSI<\/em> premise of the exceedingly well-funded, glamorous lab techs who do a homicide detective\u2019s job. Even less real, they say. And they get annoyed when <em>The Closer<\/em>\u2019s heroine ignores a suspect\u2019s requests for a lawyer. Unconstitutional, they say.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>DUMB CROOKS<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In the real world, it\u2019s usually neither the crusading prosecutor nor the headstrong cop who solves the case. Most criminals, cops admit, are their own worst enemies. Either they don\u2019t cover their tracks or they brag to friends about what they did, or both. People tend not to think clearly when they commit crimes. But in the past few years there has appeared a new kind of criminal: the kind that watches <em>CSI<\/em>\u2026and learns.<\/p>\n<p>In December 2005, Jermaine \u201cManiac\u201d McKinney, a 25-year-old man from Ohio, broke into a house and killed two people. He used bleach to clean his hands as well as the crime scene, then carefully removed all of the evidence and placed blankets in his car before transferring the bodies to an isolated lakeshore at night, where he burned them along with his clothes and cigarette butts\u2014making sure that none of his DNA could be connected to the victims. One thing remained: the murder weapon, a crowbar. McKinney threw it into the lake\u2026which was frozen. He didn\u2019t want to risk walking out on the ice to get it, so he left it behind. Big mistake: The weapon was later found\u2014still on the ice\u2014and linked to McKinney, which led to his arrest. When asked why he used bleach to clean his hands, McKinney said that he\u2019d learned that bleach destroys DNA. Where\u2019d he learn that? \u201cOn CSI.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Using bleach to clean a crime scene was almost unheard of until <em>CSI<\/em> used it as a plot point. Now the practice is occurring more and more often. \u201cSometimes I believe it may even encourage criminals when they see how simple it is to get away with murder on television,\u201d said Captain Ray Peavy, head of the homicide division at the Los Angeles Sheriff\u2019s Department. It\u2019s difficult enough to investigate a crime scene with the \u201cnormal\u201d amount of evidence left behind.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MAYBE DON\u2019T SHOW THEM THE SCIENCE?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>So should these shows be censored? Should they tone down the science or, as some have argued, use fake science to throw criminals a red herring? \u201cThe National District Attorneys Association is deeply concerned about the effect of <em>CSI<\/em>,\u201d CBS News consultant and former prosecutor Wendy Murphy reported. \u201cWhen <em>CSI<\/em> trumps common sense, then you have a systemic problem.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But not everyone agrees. \u201cTo argue that <em>CSI<\/em> and similar shows are actually raising the number of acquittals is a staggering claim,\u201d argues Simon Cole, professor of criminology at the University of California, Irvine. \u201cAnd the remarkable thing is that, speaking forensically, there is not a shred of evidence to back it up.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>And furthering the debate about whether criminals learn from <em>CSI<\/em>, Paul Wilson, the chair of criminology at Bond University in Australia, stated, \u201cThere is no doubt that criminals copy what they see on television. However, I don\u2019t believe these shows pose a major problem.\u201d Prison, Wilson maintains, is where most of these people learn the tricks of their trade. So while law enforcement officials may agree that cop and lawyer shows do have an effect on modern investigations and trials, the jury is still out on exactly what that effect is.<\/p>\n<p><strong>THE SILVER LINING<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The shows do have their positive aspects. For one thing, they teach basic science, saving the courts time and money by not having to call in experts to explain such concepts as what DNA evidence actually is. Anthony E. Zuiker, creator of the <em>CSI<\/em> franchise, is quick to point this out. \u201cJurors can walk in with some preconceived notions of at least what <em>CSI<\/em> means. And even if there are false expectations, at least jurors aren\u2019t walking in blind.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps most significantly, though, ever since <em>CSI<\/em> became a hit in 2000, student admissions into the forensic field have skyrocketed. So even if Zuiker\u2019s show is confusing jurors, misinforming police, and helping to train criminals, at least it\u2019s proven to be an effective recruiting tool. \u201cThe CSI effect is, in my opinion, the most amazing thing that has ever come out of the series,\u201d he said. \u201cFor the first time in American history, you\u2019re not allowed to fool the jury anymore.\u201d And finally, a message from Zuiker to anyone who walks up and points out his shows\u2019 inherent flaws: \u201cFolks, it\u2019s television.\u201d<\/p>\n<div class=\"highlighter\">\n<p><a rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/gp\/product\/1607101815\/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1607101815&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=vicastingcom-20&amp;linkId=KZAL6NWHF5ZJYCAH\" target=\"_blank\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignleft wp-image-41659 size-full\" src=\"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/06\/uncle-johns-tunes.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"232\" height=\"345\" \/><\/a>This article is reprinted with permission from <em><a rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/gp\/product\/1607101815\/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1607101815&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=vicastingcom-20&amp;linkId=KZAL6NWHF5ZJYCAH\" target=\"_blank\">Uncle John&#8217;s Bathroom Reader Tunes Into TV<\/a><\/em>. Here comes your wacky neighbor Uncle John to present TV the way only he can. From test patterns to <em>Top Chef<\/em>, from <em>My Three Sons<\/em> to <em>Mad Men<\/em>, as well as TV news, advertising, scandals, sitcoms, dramas, reality shows, and yadda yadda yadda, <a rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/gp\/product\/1607101815\/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=1607101815&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=vicastingcom-20&amp;linkId=LNSYFHQCVEJUXTVI\" target=\"_blank\">Uncle John&#8217;s Bathroom Reader Tunes into TV<\/a> is \u201cdy-no-mite!\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Since 1987, the <a rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"http:\/\/www.bathroomreader.com\/\" target=\"_blank\">Bathroom Readers\u2019 Institute<\/a> has led the movement to stand up for those who sit down and read in the bathroom (and everywhere else for that matter). With more than 15 million books in print, the Uncle John\u2019s Bathroom Reader series is the longest-running, most popular series of its kind in the world.<\/p>\n<p>If you like <a href='http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com' title='Interesting Facts'>Today I Found Out<\/a>, I guarantee you&#8217;ll love the <a rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"http:\/\/www.bathroomreader.com\/interesting-articles-and-trivia\" target=\"_blank\">Bathroom Reader Institute&#8217;s books, so check them out<\/a>!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The following is an article from Uncle John\u2019s Bathroom Reader How real are the TV shows that focus on police and lawyers? A few go all out for accuracy, while others get laughed at by the professions they portray. But they\u2019ve all had an impact on society\u2026both positive and negative. FAMILIAR FORMULA If there were no cops, prosecutors, or defense [&#8230;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":179,"featured_media":48893,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48892","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48892","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/179"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=48892"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48892\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":48895,"href":"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48892\/revisions\/48895"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/48893"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48892"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48892"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48892"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}