You have probably heard of the so-called “CSI effect”. Forensic science made popular by TV programmes featuring brave and handsome gun-toting forensic scientists catching the criminals armed with a swab and microscope….?
No bad thing of course and no one really believes it’s true. Do they?
Well, yes they do. And it is having some far reaching consequences.
A recent article in the Economist magazine highlights American research that shows how TV programmes about forensic science have affected the American legal system. The most obvious problem in the court rooms is that jurors think they understand about forensic science when they do not.
The whole legal process is being slowed down considerably. Jury selection is taking longer to eliminate people who judge science by television standards; prosecutors are introducing a “negative evidence” witness to explain why types of evidence are not found at the scene; and there is a lot of time spent explaining probability – despite getting 100% certain matches from a micro-spot of blood on CSI, this is rarely the case in real life.
A secret fan of CSI myself, I particularly like the wonderful machine which can identify a sample of anything at all (mud from the far west side of New York, clay from Ireland, sand from Sweden….). You just put in your sample, press a button and hey presto! A match is found. This, unfortunately, is also pure fiction. Something else some jury members are surprised by.
Criminals also watch TV and there has been evidence of more glove wearing, more bleaching and less envelope licking at crime scenes around the USA.
But jurors are questioning more, which can never be a bad thing. And hopefully the judges and lawyers are up to the job of answering their concerns. Let’s just hope they themselves do not rely on the TV for their knowledge of forensic science.
Esther Crooks
Research by Evan Durnal of the University of Central Missouri’s Criminal Justice Department. The conclusions have just been published in Forensic Science International.
Thomas Mauriello reached the conclusion that 40 per cent of all technologies shown on CSI simply do not exist.
But a more problematic issue is that forensics turns science on its head. In research the process is in focus. Other scientists must be able to reproduce the results. This may even be more important than getting the right results. A researcher might even discard an excellent result, because of bad methodology.
Forensics focuses on the results, find the bad guy and improve the efficiency not the security of the research process.
There is also the issue of the connections between the forensics office, the police and the public attorney. Even a good forensics officer trying to make the evidence talk for themselves may feel a lot of pressure, if her boss is the Public Attorney’s Office, or as in Sweden Rikspolisstyrelsen.
Thomas Mauriello reached the conclusion that 40 per cent of all technologies shown on CSI simply do not exist.
But a more problematic issue is that forensics turns science on its head. In research the process is in focus. Other scientists must be able to reproduce the results. This may even be more important than getting the right results. A researcher might even discard an excellent result, because of bad methodology.
Forensics focuses on the results, find the bad guy and improve the efficiency not the security of the research process.
There is also the issue of the connections between the forensics office, the police and the public attorney. Even a good forensics officer trying to make the evidence talk for themselves may feel a lot of pressure, if her boss is the Public Attorney’s Office, or as in Sweden Rikspolisstyrelsen.
Interesting point about the reproducibility. I had not thought of that angle. It seems CSI (and the like) are responsible for many things…. or should we really blame the TV programme makers? Probably not. It never claims to be anything other than fiction.
And do you feel there is a clash between the lab and the police in Sweden? I admit I do not know very much about how the chain of command operates in Sweden or elsewhere for that matter.
Interesting point about the reproducibility. I had not thought of that angle. It seems CSI (and the like) are responsible for many things…. or should we really blame the TV programme makers? Probably not. It never claims to be anything other than fiction.
And do you feel there is a clash between the lab and the police in Sweden? I admit I do not know very much about how the chain of command operates in Sweden or elsewhere for that matter.
The NAS report in February 2009 regarding forensics makes for interesting reading. There is a debate in the US, thanks to the Innocence Project, and questions are being made regarding the relationship between the PA’s office and the forensics labs it contracts.
In Sweden we do not have a debate regarding forensics. SKL, Statens Kriminaltekniska Laboratorium is, to my knowledge, the sole authority that can analyze the tests from a crime scene. Under special circumstances, a Swedish court of law, might grant a second opinion of the test from abroad. This happens quite seldom, as it would raise the costs of the court.
Since the forensics lab is a part of the police in Sweden. This is a major boon for the police, but it does cast doubt over the impartiality and fairness of the forensics lab. It is not necessarily a question about direct bias, but about indirect pressure built into structure of the chain of command. I’ve written on this topic for some Swedish publications, and provided some suggestions for solutions.
Now, the topic of the structure of the Swedish legal system goes a bit far away from VA-bloggen’s focus. But there is an important point to make, the application of science does matter to the perceptions of the public regarding the nature of science.
If forensics science is something that you can make recourse to, or dispute the claims, science gains the active part in society it is often lacking in Sweden. If science becomes, due to its application, very much the province of just the experts, the public will distance itself from it.
The NAS report in February 2009 regarding forensics makes for interesting reading. There is a debate in the US, thanks to the Innocence Project, and questions are being made regarding the relationship between the PA’s office and the forensics labs it contracts.
In Sweden we do not have a debate regarding forensics. SKL, Statens Kriminaltekniska Laboratorium is, to my knowledge, the sole authority that can analyze the tests from a crime scene. Under special circumstances, a Swedish court of law, might grant a second opinion of the test from abroad. This happens quite seldom, as it would raise the costs of the court.
Since the forensics lab is a part of the police in Sweden. This is a major boon for the police, but it does cast doubt over the impartiality and fairness of the forensics lab. It is not necessarily a question about direct bias, but about indirect pressure built into structure of the chain of command. I’ve written on this topic for some Swedish publications, and provided some suggestions for solutions.
Now, the topic of the structure of the Swedish legal system goes a bit far away from VA-bloggen’s focus. But there is an important point to make, the application of science does matter to the perceptions of the public regarding the nature of science.
If forensics science is something that you can make recourse to, or dispute the claims, science gains the active part in society it is often lacking in Sweden. If science becomes, due to its application, very much the province of just the experts, the public will distance itself from it.