Pop Forensic Psychology: What’s Not Quite Right in Today’s Crime Shows

[The Straight Story]

Pop Forensic Psychology: What’s Not Quite Right in Today’s Crime Shows

Thanks to pop culture shows such as the “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation” franchised programs (“CSI: Miami, Las Vegas and New York”) as well as true crime stories featured on the show “Forensic Files,” the once nearly unheard of aspect of the legal system, forensic psychology, has emerged into full and popular view. The downside is that the way investigations are portrayed in these shows is not always accurate, yet much of the general public believes this to be the case. As a result, many people often have unrealistic expectations of the judicial system, which is better know as the “CSI effect.” The worst part is, according to an article, written by Judge Donald Shelton, this phenomenon has reached a fevered pitch in and among juries in recent years.

Named for the most popular of these programs, the CSI effect occurs when shows portraying overtly evident acts of investigative prowess employ what many experts in the field consider outlandish and dramatic tools of their trades or methods of detection. The effect is solidified when fans of these shows are riveted by crime solving procedures, which usually take months – if not years – to complete in real life, but are quickly solved within one episode of the program. Fans then assume that these same procedures are commonplace and standard for the average law enforcement or judicial system and mistakenly demand the same results.

In an article for USAtoday.com, Richard Willing explains how where juries once depended upon the tactful and sometimes forceful convictions of the prosecution or defense attorney, juries now look to television for an added opinion on the matter of justice. Evidence, which once understood as fragile and dependent, is now viewed as an infallible and easily gained task thanks to scientific and technological portrayals on forensics shows. In fact, as PBS.org article published on February, 2011, points out, one of the more egregious shortcomings of these forensics shows includes actual CSI agents doing unnecessary testing and procedures simply to present to a jury.

The tasks given to many of the characters in these shows are often unrealistic as well. Where law enforcement in real terms is divided between duties, forensic psychology shows often portray death investigators as gun-toting, door-breaking officers on the street. This is not wholly true. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times by Molly Hennessy-Fiske , the majority of large jurisdictions throughout the country do not allow their forensics investigators to carry weapons at all.

http://www.popbunker.net/2011/04/pop-forensic-psychology-todays-crime-shows/

[customerserviceguy]

1. This has probably been going on for quite some time

Cop and lawyer shows go back to near the dawn of the TV era, no doubt they've been influencing American jurisprudence for a couple of generations now.

Look at all the fake "judge" shows on weekday afternoons that have replaced the soaps. For millions of Americans, litigation is entertainment, not a serious business at all.

[The Straight Story]

2. I read judge judy makes $45 million a year

And the show pays the money (and not the person who lost the case) and both parties are compensated for being on the show.

So maybe I will sue myself ;)

[whistler162]

3. To the dawn of radio actually and further back, Dragnet started on radio....

IIRC there where early TV shows with the star as a Crime Lab scientist.

[udbcrzy2]

4. Court TV is real trials

This show is on during the daytime and it airs live and taped trials. What you don't know is that sometimes there is evidence or testimony not submitted for one reason or another into the trial. Also, the media sometimes does not always report an accurate record of what happened during the trial, they may lean toward the suspect and against the victim. The media just focuses on the story despite what they print just may blacken the name of the victim and their family. I've seen the media report what an attorney says during trial as factual. The truth is that whatever the attorneys say is not fact and many times they lie because they are not under oath.

[AngryAmish]

5. You have to show juries much more fancy graphics, that is for sure

Days of going to trial with witnesses and some paperwork are long gone.

Trials are just long powerpoint presentations now.

(Actually, you win the trial in the opening statements and the "evidence" is just giving jurors on your side more ammunition to argue in the jury room.)