Status: Fiction mistaken for reality
I've included many definitions of hoax-related terms in
Hippo Eats Dwarf. One of these terms is the CSI Effect. I define it as "The belief that all criminal cases are solved using the high-tech, forensic science seen on TV crime shows such as CSI. Lawyers have noticed that the lack of such high-tech evidence can seriously prejudice a jury against a prosecutor's case. A manifestation of the if-it's-not-like-what-we-see-on-TV-then-it-can't-be-real mentality." And now the
Star Tribune reports on a recent occurrence of the CSI Effect:
Dakota County authorities thought their felony case against a driver charged with criminal vehicular operation was solid. But jurors knocked it down to a misdemeanor, convicting the defendant of reckless driving instead. Then they told the prosecutor they were disappointed with the case. "They wanted to see a computerized reenactment," said Phil Prokopowicz, chief deputy county attorney. "It was something they expected."
The article goes on to say:
Because of the "CSI" shows, some prosecutors contend, more jurors believe every crime scene yields forensic evidence that offers conclusive scientific proof of innocence or guilt, almost instantly. When selecting jurors, Hennepin County Attorney Amy Klobuchar said, prosecutors are now trying to explain "that real life is not like a TV show ... and that just because there is no DNA evidence does not mean that there is not substantial other evidence sufficient to prove our case."
Comments
For some reason, I find this story quite depressing...
We are too fat and lazy to see the writing on the wall. Keep this up and it soon will be over. Adults who expect to determine justice by an animated CSI video show given them by their local underpaid prosecutor and when they don't get it put a criminal back on the street are too stupid to see the end results of doing stupid acts.
You actually have to think in order to ensure justice is done. The reason you are on a jury is to determine whether the person is guilty or not, given the evidence, not to sit there watching some million dollar entertainment production that cannot be supported on the minimal tax dollars you pay. Maybe the solution since we're so stupid is to start raising taxes. If we want the show, we need to pay the piper.
I agree TV and movies have given the general public a distorted view of reality. When I first saw CSI, I thought it was pretty good, until they dealt with a subject I knew something about. It was obvious they didn't know what they were talking about. I came to the conclusion they were probably just as far off about the things I didn't know about.
Read this interesting piece about modern jury selection on James Randi's commentary:
http://www.randi.org/jr/200511/111805setback.html#i4
On the other hand, it does seem stupid to insist on a video reconstruction of the crime; or for the police to insist on a DNA analysis of every cigarette butt on the side of a road. In short, I think that it is due to a lack of imagination and desire to think, rather than an expectation that it will be like a TV show.
There was another police show in about the late 60s or early 70s that was extremely realistic, in that it mostly showed two officers riding around in their squad car, answering calls about lost wallets and barking dogs, but hardly ever really doing much of anything. Needless to say, that show no longer exists. I can't think of the name of the series. Maybe another reader out there can tell me?
Anyhow, I think it was closer to what police work is really like than any other show. Even on "Cops," which has documentary footage of real police officers, they edit out all the boring parts, which of course is most of it.
http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0062539/
Thank you!
I just couldn't remember the name of that show.
It was an amazingly realistic depiction of police work, with hardly any concessions made to entertainment value.