Crime Lab Evoluion - Where Do We Go After the "CSI Effect"?

F

Forensics_Guy

Witness
Crime Lab Evolution


The old crime lab "black-box" model is quickly being destroyed by the new "open to inspection" forensic laboratory. There are a few reasons. The first of which is that as television shows popularize forensics through dramatized accounts loosely based on factual premises. The second is the alarming frequency with which police lab forensic scientists have been found either over-stating the conclusion they reached after examining the evidence, or in some cases down right lying about them.

Now the public needs to ask itself, in order to provide a truly fair trial, what is the next step? There are two possible solutions.

The first is a publicly "defense lab" to offer a checks and balance approach to the forensics lab run by the state. The obvious problem is that now the public is paying twice to have the same thing done. Another problem with this approach is that it begs the question "Who gets the evidence first?". In some cases there might only be enough evidence for one analysis. While lab would/should get the evidence first? The lab which is run by the police/prosecution? Or the lab looking to prove the defendant is innocent?

A second solution is a single publicly funded lab that is not a part of the police/prosecution/or defense establishment. A lab that is open to communication from all sides, and analyses the evidence appropriately, and reports truly impartial conclusions/opinions based solely on the evidence itself. One problem with this approach is that neither side would probably feel comfortable offering information to the lab which would be needed to properly examine the evidence. The result would be both defense arguments, and prosecution arguments (read hypothetical explanations for the physical evidence found), coming at the forensic scientist out of the blue, with no chance for the scientist to test the theories in the lab.

A third solution is to privatize forensic analysis. Then we run into problems like whoever has the most money, can afford to have the evidence analyzed - and they would only ask to have the evidence analyzed that they expect to support their case. This is similar to the situation the defense faces today. Another possible problem would be a decrease in quality, based on the fact that the driving force in private business is the number of "widgets" turned out. A forensic science lab should not be paid by the number of cases/pieces of evidence it can analyze in a given period of time. Some cases can be turned out in 15 minutes, some cases can take years, based on the amount of evidence submitted and needed to be analyzed.


How will time change crime labs? I don't know. But I'm interested in finding out, and shows like CSI that increases the public understanding of forensics can only help the situation.
 
Forensics_Guy said:
Crime Lab Evolution

A second solution is a single publicly funded lab that is not a part of the police/prosecution/or defense establishment. A lab that is open to communication from all sides, and analyses the evidence appropriately, and reports truly impartial conclusions/opinions based solely on the evidence itself. One problem with this approach is that neither side would probably feel comfortable offering information to the lab which would be needed to properly examine the evidence. The result would be both defense arguments, and prosecution arguments (read hypothetical explanations for the physical evidence found), coming at the forensic scientist out of the blue, with no chance for the scientist to test the theories in the lab.
Click to expand...

The Centre of Forensic Sciences in Toronto is an impartial lab. Anywhere in Ontario (I'm not sure if all of Canada is similar) if there is a police department or private individual that needs extensive forensics work done, tests, etc, they send it to the CFS.

The laboratory personnel at the lab are objective. They don't need theories or explanations as to why something is there. Let the investigators, the defense and the crown work that out. The problem is though, as is probably with many labs around the world, they're terribly back-logged, and something that needs to be processed right away gets placed on the waiting list.
 
Re: Crime Lab Evoluion - Where Do We Go After the "CSI Effec

Sounds like CFS is doing things right if they have a backlog. In the United States there are "for fee" labs that are being paid money over government labs that have huge backlogs. But if CFS is already independent of the defense and the crown they are doing things right. Do they have any competition?

The state of Alabama in the US has an independent state department of forensic science. It sounds great on the surface, but then all the forensic scientists have to be sworn officers.
 
Re: Crime Lab Evoluion - Where Do We Go After the "CSI Effec

The CSI Effect isn't just about funding for crimelabs. It also has affacts many court cases, where jurors come to expect the solid forensic evidence like DNA and fingerprinting they see on CSI and other crime dramas. This is costly, so many cases rely on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies. Because of the CSI Effect, jurors want more evidence, which has advantages and disadvantages.
Advantage: More demand for tests can increase funding for Crime labs.
Disadvantage: If the evidence in a case does not contain enough solid evidence for a jury to convict, many criminals could walk. I am no expert, but I have researched a few cases that have gone south because of the CSI Effect.
example: a woman was attacked and raped and a suspect was in custody. The semen DNA matched the suspects and there was testimony from the victim and nurses and officers. The jury found the suspect not guilty because they thought the investigators should have tested soil samples to see if the detritus on the victim was similar to the crime scene, something the jurors seen on CSI. The suspect walked and the woman was attacked again and killed.

Now I don't know if the CSI Effect is that great if it allows criminals to get away, even though it stimulates funding for labs.
 
Re: Crime Lab Evoluion - Where Do We Go After the "CSI Effec

27dayz said:
The CSI Effect isn't just about funding for crimelabs. It also has affacts many court cases, where jurors come to expect the solid forensic evidence like DNA and fingerprinting they see on CSI and other crime dramas. This is costly, so many cases rely on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies. Because of the CSI Effect, jurors want more evidence, which has advantages and disadvantages.
Advantage: More demand for tests can increase funding for Crime labs.
Disadvantage: If the evidence in a case does not contain enough solid evidence for a jury to convict, many criminals could walk. I am no expert, but I have researched a few cases that have gone south because of the CSI Effect.
example: a woman was attacked and raped and a suspect was in custody. The semen DNA matched the suspects and there was testimony from the victim and nurses and officers. The jury found the suspect not guilty because they thought the investigators should have tested soil samples to see if the detritus on the victim was similar to the crime scene, something the jurors seen on CSI. The suspect walked and the woman was attacked again and killed.

Now I don't know if the CSI Effect is that great if it allows criminals to get away, even though it stimulates funding for labs.
Click to expand...

I've never seen first hand where the CSI effect has resulted in funding for crime labs. The latest increase in US federal funding on crime labs has to do with national databases like CODIS and NIBIN.

I agree that the juries can start to expect way to much to be done, and since it wasn't done "like on TV", they have let people walk. I've heard of other cases involved looking for latent prints on a shattered car window (broken to pieces, not just cracked and in place).

But on the positive side it has made the jury aware of what can be done in some cases, and it helps the jury to ask more intelligent questions, and not accept "expert witness" testimony (for either side) as gospel.
 
Re: Crime Lab Evoluion - Where Do We Go After the "CSI Effec

I think that in that case the prosecution should have done a better job of proving that the defendant was their man. However, the defense has to prove not that it isn't their man, but that they "could be wrong."

The prosecution, while they might be a little happy about the CSI Effect because it can lead to a better-educated jury, they still need to treat them like they know nothing about the courts or the investigative process, that they know just as much as your average person. If you're selected for jury duty, and you say that you know anything about policing, that you're a police officer, a forensics officer, an attorney, a judge (although I doubt that you'd be selected for jury duty if you're a judge...), if your parents are one, you get the idea...you are excluded from jury duty because your opinion is already biased. You will examine what you see based on what you already know, and it's harder to try to re-educate someone than it is to educate them.

Because, what they learn on television isn't always right. It's glamourized. Courts still need to treat juries exactly the same as before. It might seem a little patronizing, but you need to hold their hand and lead them through it (of course, talking through the prosecuting side). Using your example...

"The DNA in the semen sample found at the scene, as well as the testimony of the victim herself, tells us that the defendant is responsible for this crime beyond a reasonable doubt."

...I've watched a lot of Law and Order, and I admit, I'm a fan of Ben Stone and Jack McCoy's closing arguments. And opening arguments...and crazy antics.
 
Re: Crime Lab Evoluion - Where Do We Go After the "CSI Effec

i wanted to be a forensic scientist but here in england its rubbish that means all you do is stay in the lab and analyse blood or summat....so i think im going to become a science teacher instead that way i could be like grissom and teach ppl all i know.......i could be a hero!!
 
Re: Crime Lab Evoluion - Where Do We Go After the "CSI Effec

I want to be a CSI too for as long as I can remember. Even before CSI. Sadly, we don't have such courses here in the Philippines (or in my chosen university). And the forensics system/program here is sorta rubbish too. I'm planning to take it elsewhere.

Right now, I'm taking up something on Research. I'm a huge fan of L&O and SVU and I must admit, the court part of it is most interesting. Because of that, I read up on criminal justice and forensics as much as I could.... at 14 years old. I'm 18 now and my classmates go to me when they need something for our PolSci classes.

I remember in one class, I was the only one who actually knew what the Miranda warning is and what it is called. Don't get me wrong, it's not common knowledge here in the Philippines. My professor couldn't believe that I got all that info out of the TV.
 
Re: Crime Lab Evoluion - Where Do We Go After the "CSI Effec

The problem with Csi, is that it makes it sound so easy. In Csi Miami, only once did Horatio not succeed in arresting the murderer. This is not what happens in proper life. However, what I think is good, is that it also shows the dangers of being part of the police (Ryan being injured, Speedle being killed and the near escapes to bombs). It also takes into account ( as much as a TV show can do) the complexity of witnesses or/and felons. I think that it will encourage people to choose this particular branch, but wont decieve them too much. If more people choose to work in the forensic area, it will encourage states to invest in this domain. I know that the forensic department in France or England, isn't good because of lack of fundings and not enough qualified people.
 
Re: Crime Lab Evoluion - Where Do We Go After the "CSI Effec

yea thats the message csi is sending out to people it makes it look so easy but its really not!

but then we could also say it has got kids into science again!
 
Re: Crime Lab Evoluion - Where Do We Go After the "CSI Effec

thegluups said:
The problem with Csi, is that it makes it sound so easy. In Csi Miami, only once did Horatio not succeed in arresting the murderer. This is not what happens in proper life. However, what I think is good, is that it also shows the dangers of being part of the police (Ryan being injured, Speedle being killed and the near escapes to bombs). It also takes into account ( as much as a TV show can do) the complexity of witnesses or/and felons. I think that it will encourage people to choose this particular branch, but wont decieve them too much. If more people choose to work in the forensic area, it will encourage states to invest in this domain. I know that the forensic department in France or England, isn't good because of lack of fundings and not enough qualified people.
Click to expand...

CSI makes it look incredibly easy and incredibly simplified. In CSI they made Greg a scene of the crime officer with only internal training. That isn't what happens at all. They show results in a matter of minutes when in actuality, you're lucky if it takes a couple of hours.

The writers show a life of policing, etc, is always full of activity, meaning they're always on the job and there are always a bunch of bad guys to catch. Again, this isn't true, but you don't see any show displaying what a real tour of duty is (it would be incredibly boring). Maybe CSI could use that slow time to give the characters story arcs?


I don't think that real CSIs would have to do a lot of volunteer work, but at least in policing, in Canada, you have to do a lot of volunteer work. They don't show anything like that on any television show. Television can be exceptionally deceptive.

Additionally, CSI seems like it's turning into drama rather than a procedural.
 
Re: Crime Lab Evoluion - Where Do We Go After the "CSI Effec

But in fairness to the show, I'm actually talking more about Miami because it's the one I watch the more, it's closer to reality than most police based shows are. In fairness to them, if they were a 100% faithful to xhat it's really like, they probably wouldn"t have much of an audince...
 
Re: Crime Lab Evoluion - Where Do We Go After the "CSI Effec

The problem with Csi, is that it makes it sound so easy. In Csi Miami, only once did Horatio not succeed in arresting the murderer. This is not what happens in proper life. However, what I think is good, is that it also shows the dangers of being part of the police (Ryan being injured, Speedle being killed and the near escapes to bombs). It also takes into account ( as much as a TV show can do) the complexity of witnesses or/and felons. I think that it will encourage people to choose this particular branch, but wont decieve them too much. If more people choose to work in the forensic area, it will encourage states to invest in this domain. I know that the forensic department in France or England, isn't good because of lack of fundings and not enough qualified people.

[/QUOTE]

CSI makes it look incredibly easy and incredibly simplified. In CSI they made Greg a scene of the crime officer with only internal training. That isn't what happens at all. They show results in a matter of minutes when in actuality, you're lucky if it takes a couple of hours.

The writers show a life of policing, etc, is always full of activity, meaning they're always on the job and there are always a bunch of bad guys to catch. Again, this isn't true, but you don't see any show displaying what a real tour of duty is (it would be incredibly boring). Maybe CSI could use that slow time to give the characters story arcs?


I don't think that real CSIs would have to do a lot of volunteer work, but at least in policing, in Canada, you have to do a lot of volunteer work. They don't show anything like that on any television show. Television can be exceptionally deceptive.

Additionally, CSI seems like it's turning into drama rather than a procedural.

[/QUOTE]

But in fairness to the show, I'm actually talking more about Miami because it's the one I watch the more, it's closer to reality than most police based shows are. In fairness to them, if they were a 100% faithful to xhat it's really like, they probably wouldn"t have much of an audience...
 
Re: Crime Lab Evoluion - Where Do We Go After the "CSI Effec

Remember too that it is extremely rare for someone who does CSI to be a "sworn" officer out there on the street with a gun chasing down badguys. When CSI first aired I was talking with a nearly 20 year veteran homicide detective about the show. We both got a laugh out of how his job was portrayed as a lackey to the CSI staff.

This seperation of scientist from gun-toting-police officer is a good thing on a few levels. If you aren't a sworn officer, you don't appear as "pro-cop" to the jury, and if you aren't out there interacting with the suspects your chances of getting hurt are extremely small.

The only time I see suspects is usually in photographs (taken of the person by lab CSIs at the police department once apprehended), and in court. In neither case am I put at risk.
 
Re: Crime Lab Evoluion - Where Do We Go After the "CSI Effec

In terms of police ranks, wages....who is considered the most important, would it be the homicide detective, or the CSI "chief" of lieutenant if that's what you call it. I'm not sure if I've explained myself clearly here....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top