History Main / TheCSIEffect

5th Apr '16 7:02:29 AM narm00
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Note that some law enforcement official believe this can be a good thing, as many criminals end up [[NiceJobFixingItVillain generating more evidence]] [[RevealingCoverup by trying to dispose of it]]. Max Houck, director of the Forensic Science Initiative at West Virginia University gave the example of a man who would not lick his envelopes to avoid leaving DNA, only to leave hair and fingerprints in the adhesive tape he'd use to seal the envelopes.

to:

Note that some law enforcement official officials believe this can be a good thing, as many criminals end up [[NiceJobFixingItVillain generating more evidence]] [[RevealingCoverup by trying to dispose of it]]. Max Houck, director of the Forensic Science Initiative at West Virginia University University, gave the example of a man who would not lick his envelopes to avoid leaving DNA, only to leave hair and fingerprints in the adhesive tape he'd use to seal the envelopes.



This phenomenon predates ''CSI'' by quite a bit. For example, during the Manson murder case, a kid found a gun in a field. Having watched ''Dragnet'', he knew to pick it up by the muzzle to preserve fingerprints. Unfortunately the cops didn't, and grabbed the gun by the handle, obliterating any fingerprints.

to:

This phenomenon predates ''CSI'' by quite a bit. For example, during the Manson murder case, a kid found a gun in a field. Having watched ''Dragnet'', ''Franchise/{{Dragnet}}'', he knew to pick it up by the muzzle to preserve fingerprints. Unfortunately the cops didn't, and grabbed the gun by the handle, obliterating any fingerprints.



This one, when it happens, severely annoys Defence attorneys.[[note]]This is a subset of a well-known problem, the tendency of jurors to place more weight on the testimony of Police officers and other representatives of the authorities.[[/note]] This happens even though the science behind forensics is constantly evolving, and many labs are using methods no longer considered certain.

to:

This one, when it happens, severely annoys Defence defence attorneys.[[note]]This is a subset of a well-known problem, the tendency of jurors to place more weight on the testimony of Police police officers and other representatives of the authorities.[[/note]] This happens even though the science behind forensics is constantly evolving, and many labs are using methods no longer considered certain.
17th Jan '16 10:47:47 AM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The arson-evidence controversy later was explored in the [[LawAndOrderSpecialVictimsUnit Law & Order: SVU]] episode "Torch," portraying two fire scene investigators arriving at opposing conclusions about whether a man had set fire to his house, killing his family. The first investigator, near retirement, relied on outdated methods of interpretation of the evidence; the second investigator (with the help of a District Attorney played by Creator/SharonStone), recreated the scene and demonstrated that the other investigator's interpretation was flawed. The episode is discussed in [[http://www.texasobserver.org/contrarian/law--order-takes-on-arson this news article.]]

to:

The arson-evidence controversy later was explored in the [[LawAndOrderSpecialVictimsUnit ''[[Series/LawAndOrderSpecialVictimsUnit Law & Order: SVU]] SVU]]'' episode "Torch," portraying two fire scene investigators arriving at opposing conclusions about whether a man had set fire to his house, killing his family. The first investigator, near retirement, relied on outdated methods of interpretation of the evidence; the second investigator (with the help of a District Attorney played by Creator/SharonStone), recreated the scene and demonstrated that the other investigator's interpretation was flawed. The episode is discussed in [[http://www.texasobserver.org/contrarian/law--order-takes-on-arson this news article.]]
24th Aug '15 6:08:21 PM eroock
Is there an issue? Send a Message


->I saw them do it on CSI. It ''has'' to work that way!

to:

->I ->''"I saw them do it on CSI. It ''has'' to work that way!
way!"''
17th Apr '15 9:04:38 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


It was first reported in the news media in 2005. The TropeNamer is ''{{CSI}}''; it, its [[SpinOff spinoffs]], and its imitators have led juries to refuse to consider any evidence trustworthy except for the most comprehensive, and to equate its absence with reasonable doubt. Whether or not this is actually true, or that CSI caused this if it is, doesn't matter to us. It is what the trope is called, that's all. Ironically, the Season 15 opener of ''CSI'' will be called "The CSI Effect"!

Collecting this super-evidence takes much less time InUniverse in ''{{CSI}}''-like stories than it does in RealLife because of time compression -- both to make the show fit in an hour with ads and to let a season take less than a few years InUniverse. In the show, DNA tests work in hours; in RealLife, it can take months (a DNA analysis can take a few days to complete and American crime labs are infamously overworked and backlogged). Unfortunately, jurors are frequently unaware of the time difference; getting evidence beyond a reasonable doubt by the ''CSI'' measure can conflict with giving the defendant a fair and ''speedy'' trial. And heaven help the prosecutor if the jury wants evidence of a kind that doesn't exist yet! At least one of the [=CSIs=] has had security camera footage rotated to see the back of something, for instance.

to:

It was first reported in the news media in 2005. The TropeNamer is ''{{CSI}}''; ''Series/{{CSI}}''; it, its [[SpinOff spinoffs]], and its imitators have led juries to refuse to consider any evidence trustworthy except for the most comprehensive, and to equate its absence with reasonable doubt. Whether or not this is actually true, or that CSI caused this if it is, doesn't matter to us. It is what the trope is called, that's all. Ironically, the Season 15 opener of ''CSI'' will be called "The CSI Effect"!

Collecting this super-evidence takes much less time InUniverse in ''{{CSI}}''-like ''Series/{{CSI}}''-like stories than it does in RealLife because of time compression -- both to make the show fit in an hour with ads and to let a season take less than a few years InUniverse. In the show, DNA tests work in hours; in RealLife, it can take months (a DNA analysis can take a few days to complete and American crime labs are infamously overworked and backlogged). Unfortunately, jurors are frequently unaware of the time difference; getting evidence beyond a reasonable doubt by the ''CSI'' measure can conflict with giving the defendant a fair and ''speedy'' trial. And heaven help the prosecutor if the jury wants evidence of a kind that doesn't exist yet! At least one of the [=CSIs=] has had security camera footage rotated to see the back of something, for instance.



One British kid, remembering something he'd seen in ''CSIMiami'', managed to preserve some evidence in a case -- and got in the papers for it.

to:

One British kid, remembering something he'd seen in ''CSIMiami'', ''Series/CSIMiami'', managed to preserve some evidence in a case -- and got in the papers for it.
30th Mar '15 3:25:12 PM WillKeaton
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The arson-evidence controversy later was explored in the [[LawAndOrderSpecialVictimsUnit Law & Order: SVU]] episode "Torch," portraying two fire scene investigators arriving at opposing conclusions about whether a man had set fire to his house, killing his family. The first investigator, near retirement, relied on outdated methods of interpretation of the evidence; the second investigator (with the help of a District Attorney played by Creator/SharonStone), recreated the scene and demonstrated that the other investigator's interpretation was flawed. The episode is discussed in [[http://www.texasobserver.org/contrarian/law--order-takes-on-arson this news article]].

to:

The arson-evidence controversy later was explored in the [[LawAndOrderSpecialVictimsUnit Law & Order: SVU]] episode "Torch," portraying two fire scene investigators arriving at opposing conclusions about whether a man had set fire to his house, killing his family. The first investigator, near retirement, relied on outdated methods of interpretation of the evidence; the second investigator (with the help of a District Attorney played by Creator/SharonStone), recreated the scene and demonstrated that the other investigator's interpretation was flawed. The episode is discussed in [[http://www.texasobserver.org/contrarian/law--order-takes-on-arson this news article]].
article.]]



Wiki/{{Wikipedia}} has a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect featured article on this topic]]. Of course, Wiki/{{Wikipedia}} itself [[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/03/wikipedia_police/ is a focus of the dangerously strong CSI effect]].

to:

Wiki/{{Wikipedia}} has a [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect featured article on this topic]]. topic.]] Of course, Wiki/{{Wikipedia}} itself [[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/03/wikipedia_police/ is a focus of the dangerously strong CSI effect]].
effect.]]
30th Mar '15 3:23:46 PM WillKeaton
Is there an issue? Send a Message


These steps are usually relatively simple, such as picking up spent shell casings, or wearing gloves. Some criminals have deliberately planted DNA samples from other plausible suspects to derail any investigation. In [[http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/csi_effect/5.html one particularly extreme case]], Jermaine [=McKinney=] of Ohio committed a double murder, then cleaned the crime scene (and himself) with bleach to destroy DNA traces, bundled the bodies before transporting them and lined his car trunk with plastic to prevent fiber and blood contamination, collected his cigarette butts and took numerous other steps; he was only caught because he was unable to dispose of his murder weapon (a crowbar) in an unexpectedly frozen lake and simply left it sitting on the ice.

to:

These steps are usually relatively simple, such as picking up spent shell casings, or wearing gloves. Some criminals have deliberately planted DNA samples from other plausible suspects to derail any investigation. In [[http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/csi_effect/5.html one particularly extreme case]], case,]] Jermaine [=McKinney=] of Ohio committed a double murder, then cleaned the crime scene (and himself) with bleach to destroy DNA traces, bundled the bodies before transporting them and lined his car trunk with plastic to prevent fiber and blood contamination, collected his cigarette butts and took numerous other steps; he was only caught because he was unable to dispose of his murder weapon (a crowbar) in an unexpectedly frozen lake and simply left it sitting on the ice.
30th Mar '15 3:23:26 PM WillKeaton
Is there an issue? Send a Message


See these stories from ''[[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050425/25csi.htm U.S News and World Report]]'', ''[[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-08-05-csi-effect_x.htm USA Today]]'' and [[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/21/earlyshow/main681949.shtml CBS News]].

to:

See these stories from ''[[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050425/25csi.htm U.S News and World Report]]'', Report,]]'' ''[[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-08-05-csi-effect_x.htm USA Today]]'' and [[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/21/earlyshow/main681949.shtml CBS News]].
News.]]
30th Sep '14 6:35:39 PM Scorpion451
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[TropesAreNotBad On the plus side]], some say jurors who expect forensic evidence are less likely to place excessive trust in the accuracy of witness testimony, and that this may reduce the risk of wrongful convictions. Witness testimony has been thoroughly demonstrated to be one of the least reliable forms of evidence and one of the most frequent causes of wrongful convictions. See the RealLife sections of FakeMemories, LaserGuidedAmnesia, WeirdnessCensor for just a few reasons why some groups advocate for the elimnation of testimony as evidence altogether in favor of purely forensic-based trials.

to:

[[TropesAreNotBad On the plus side]], some say jurors who expect forensic evidence are less likely to place excessive trust in the accuracy of witness testimony, and that this may reduce the risk of wrongful convictions. Witness testimony has been thoroughly demonstrated to be one of the least reliable forms of evidence and one of the most frequent causes of wrongful convictions. See the RealLife sections of FakeMemories, LaserGuidedAmnesia, and WeirdnessCensor for just a few reasons why some groups advocate for the elimnation of testimony as evidence altogether in favor of purely forensic-based trials.
30th Sep '14 4:58:33 PM Scorpion451
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[TropesAreNotBad On the plus side]], some say jurors who expect forensic evidence are less likely to place excessive trust in the accuracy of witness testimony, and that this may reduce the risk of wrongful convictions.

to:

[[TropesAreNotBad On the plus side]], some say jurors who expect forensic evidence are less likely to place excessive trust in the accuracy of witness testimony, and that this may reduce the risk of wrongful convictions.
convictions. Witness testimony has been thoroughly demonstrated to be one of the least reliable forms of evidence and one of the most frequent causes of wrongful convictions. See the RealLife sections of FakeMemories, LaserGuidedAmnesia, WeirdnessCensor for just a few reasons why some groups advocate for the elimnation of testimony as evidence altogether in favor of purely forensic-based trials.
25th Aug '14 8:38:52 AM SilentHunterUK
Is there an issue? Send a Message
This list shows the last 10 events of 25. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.TheCSIEffect