This is a title of a popular talk I have given to various branches of the BCS, IET and InstMC over the last three years. It developed as a means of explaining Digital Forensics to new students studying Computer Security and Forensics at the University of Bedfordshire at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. A number of students had unrealistic views on what Digital Forensics is and what it can achieve, this was meant to be a light introduction to the topic, given them insight into what they would be studying during the course, whilst correcting any miscomprehension developed from watching to much entertaining TV and Hollywood drama.
Whilst developing the talk, I found a number of articles that actually described what is called the "CSI: effect" and I used this as a basis for the talk, whilst in the talk I briefly discuss the effect before moving on to giving examples of incorrect forensic techniques in some of the crime dramas, I thought I would produce a round of the evidence I found.
One of the first instances I found mentioned was a quote from a UK Forensic Investigator about an episode of CSI: Crime Scene Investigator.
TV show CSI: Crime Scene Investigation failed to follow a basic rule of looking for evidence: don't switch on the computer. In the offending episode, chemistry boffin Greg Sanders (played by Eric Szmanda) walks on to a crime scene, turns on a nearby computer and begins accessing email
The errors here are obviously, proper crime scene investigation procedures where not followed and would a chemistry boffin really by a digital forensic investigator, without a proper chain of evidence showing that evidence was not tampered with it would not be acceptable in a court of law.
The investigators on the hit CBS show CSI: Crime Scene Investigation make it look easy, but the science employed by real crime labs has "serious deficiencies," according to a federal report requested by Congress. A 2005 Justice Department survey reported that there are 389 publicly funded crime labs in the USA handling 2.7 million often-backlogged cases a year. Although the popular CSI series "suggest that convictions are quick and no mistakes are made," the report says, the reality is that many labs are understaffed, undertrained and under-regulated.
In the UK Lord Justice Leveson was reported on the BBC News 6 Nov 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8347410.stm as saying witnesses were reluctant to come forward because of the mistaken belief that forensic and expert evidence was paramount. The judge called it the "CSI problem", a reference to the television drama in which cutting edge forensic skills are used to solve crimes.
There have been a number of quotes about the CSI: effect in the press America
- The myth of quick-and-easy crime busting may be starting to get in the way of law enforcement. Forensic scientists speak of something they call the CSI effect, a growing public expectation that police labs can do everything TV labs can. This, they worry, may poison jury pools, which could lose the ability to appreciate the shades of gray that color real criminal cases. —Jeffrey Kluger, "How Science Solves Crimes," Time Magazine, October 21, 2002
- Durst was acquitted in November. To legal analysts, his case seemed an example of how shows such as CSI are affecting action in courthouses across the USA by, among other things, raising jurors' expectations of what prosecutors should produce at trial. Prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges call it "the CSI effect," after the crime-scene shows that are among the hottest attractions on television. —Richard Willing, "'CSI effect' has juries wanting more evidence," USA Today, August 5, 2004
- It’s called the CSI effect, after the show," she said. "The prosecution is expected to reconstruct the case for the jury, just like they do on TV. The jury wants to be wowed with pictures, just like on “CSI”. They want my case to be worthy of an Emmy. They don’t want to be let down and if they are, they won’t convict." —John Darling, "CSI: SOU," Mail Tribune, November 23, 2005
The NCSTL (National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law) at Stetson University College of Law which is a program of the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, United States Department of Justice. Produced a report in October 2010 "Is Television more Believable than Science: The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Report's Effect on the CSI Effect" where it stated
Several television shows, such as CSI, glamorize forensic evidence. The CSI Effect occurs when people believe that the forensic techniques used in these shows are the same techniques that are used in real-life forensic science. They believe that DNA can be found on every piece of evidence, that fingerprints can be found in every case, and that forensic scientists can prove--with one hundred percent accuracy--that two sets of fingerprints are a match. Thus, these people believe forensic evidence is everywhere and that forensic science is never wrong. Unfortunately, forensic evidence is not ubiquitous, and forensic science is sometimes wrong.
The false belief that forensic evidence is needed in every case, as well as the false belief that forensic science is one hundred percent accurate creates the problem that embodies the CSI Effect. These beliefs lead jurors to favor the defense unless the prosecution superfluously admits forensic evidence. Because such evidential admission is costly or otherwise unnecessary, prosecutors often try to mitigate the CSI Effect during jury selection by informing the jury about the limitations of forensic science
Also the Honourable Donald E. Shelton, J. wrote a report The 'CSI Effect': Does It Really Exist
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/259/csi-effect.htm, in Mar. 2008 for the National Institute of Justice in the USA in whic he concluded "CSI viewers had higher expectations for scientific evidence than non-CSI viewers"
So does the Hollywood effect really exist?
Newly published research suggests nuggets of misinformation embedded in a fictional television program can seep into our brains and lodge there as perceived facts, that’s the conclusion of a study published in the journal Human Communication Research Volume 37, Issue 4, pages 509–528, October 2011. With dramas that are based on real life jobs, people who are not aware of what happens in a forensic lab could well believe that it is an accurate representation especially when the production companies have taken effort to where possible make it a realistic representation other than the artistic licence required to make it entertaining and fit in the time scale of the programme.
For details of my talk "Hollywood Effect on Digital Forensics" please see my web site
http://bit.ly/I1nNsN if you are interested in me given the talk please contact me.
