Question

Explain how the CSI effect could have a negative or positive outcome on a trial. Give two examples of situations where this could apply to digital forensics.

Answer 1

Negative effects of the CSI effect:

1. It’s become more difficult to prosecute defendants

Today’s jurors want more hard evidence. They want the smoking gun and the DNA proof—the unmistakable proof that points to the perpetrator. But any legal professional will tell you this doesn’t always exist.

Some think this is why high-profile defendants like Casey Anthony and Robert Blake were acquitted in recent years. Circumstantial evidence and even eye-witness accounts don’t cut it in the shadow of the high-tech, flashy world of CSI and other shows. 21^st century jurors are expecting sophisticated science to be included in every trial—even though it may not always reflect the reality of the case.

2. It’s become harder to find jurors

In light of the CSI effect, some states now allow lawyers to dismiss potential jurors from the pool based on the TV programs they watch. Lawyers may flag and remove jurors that enjoy their weekly dose of CSI and other crime programs. This is starting to limit the pool of potential candidates to serve in criminal court cases.

3. It’s straining already tight resources

To feed jurors’ appetites for bulletproof forensic evidence, some investigators have started to run seemingly useless tests simply to garner more evidence to bolster their case and appease the jury members. These tests add more strain to already-tight budgets in death investigations across the US.

4. It’s manipulating crime scenes

Criminals have access to the same television programming as the rest of us. Some believe the surplus in crime shows is changing their behavior as well. While these programs are not always entirely true, many of the proceedings are based upon facts.

Criminals are taking notes and becoming more skilled at covering their tracks. They know to wear gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints, and they know to use bleach to clean up incriminating evidence.

5. Defense lawyers are spending too much time educating juries

While all may seem well for the defendant in the age of the CSI effect, it’s not exactly the case. Defense teams must meticulously present and explain DNA and other forensic evidence to juries—defining what is to be expected and what exists solely on the silver screen.

Juries also have difficulty understanding forensic evidence, like DNA, which is calculated in probabilities rather than certainties. As a result, defense teams often waste valuable time throughout the trial ensuring jurors’ expectations and understandings are clear.

Positive effects of the CSI effect:

6. Jurors are becoming more knowledgeable

While CSI-viewers tend to have higher expectations for scientific evidence in trials, they also show patterns of superior legal knowledge compared to their non-CSI-watching counterparts. One survey indicated that CSI viewers were more likely to expect evidence relevant to a specific crime than non-CSI viewers. They also knew what type of evidence would be irrelevant to specific crimes.

However, more knowledgeable jurors isn’t always a good thing. Jurors may think they are more knowledgeable on forensic evidence than they truly are. They may be aware of forensic testing and its capabilities but not understand when it is appropriately used in a case.

7. Interest is increasing in the criminal justice field

If nothing else, crime shows are at least raising interest and awareness of the legal, medical and investigative professionals and what they do. Bringing the work of these often-overlooked criminal justice professionals to the public eye is introducing individuals to potential professional opportunities in the field.

Example:

The "CSI Effect" has been described as being an increased expectation from jurors that forensic evidence will be presented in court that is instantaneous and unequivocal because that is how it is often presented for dramatic effect in television programs and movies. Of course, in reality forensic science, while exact in some respects is just as susceptible to the vagaries of measurements and analyses as any other part of science. In reality, crime scene investigators often spend seemingly inordinate amounts of time gathering and assessing evidence and then present it as probabilities rather than the kind of definitive result expected of a court room filled with actors rather than real people.

However, while suggesting this CSI Effect is perhaps not quite as widespread as one might imagine among jurors, informatician Richard Overill of King's College London believes it might have a positive effect on reducing the tendency to criminal behaviour among some individuals. He offers details of his analysis of the "Inverse CSI Effect" in a forthcoming issue of the International Journal of Electronic Security and Digital Forensics. This would be manifest, he says, particularly among so-called cyber-criminals, fearing the instantaneous and definitive forensic evidence from the imagined cyber-sleuths.

If this inverse CSI effect exists then one might imagine that a proportion of cyber-criminals would modify their behaviour in one of three ways. They might go straight by withdrawing from their nefarious activities altogether. They might attempt to go "under the radar," restricting their crimes to ones with lower impact and less "profit" that would not necessarily warrant costly police resources for investigation. Alternatively, they might expend large amounts of effort or money to obfuscate their modus operandi with multiple layers of concealment and stealth to make their crimes invisible to even the slyest cyber sleuth.

Overill points out that there are three trends that might emerge if this inverse CSI effect emerges in the realm of cybercrime. First, we might see a reduction in the incidence (frequency) of economic cyber-crimes over time, second there could be an increase in the impact (value) of economic cyber-crimes over time and finally there will be a rise in the use of anti-forensic techniques by cyber-criminals over time. His analysis of crime data stretching back eleven years in the US suggests that these trends have been at play and that there is an inverse CSI effect.

Of course, there might be other explanations such as improved awareness among the public of security issues and identity theft and the like as well as more effective and so protective software and security systems on putative targets of cybercrime including as email phishing attacks on bank account, for example. He also points out that cybercrime is much bigger "business" than it ever was and petty activity may well have been subsumed by much bigger crime organisations. Nevertheless, the inverse CSI effect stands out as a plausible explanation of changes in cyber crime activity over the last few years. In conclusion, Overill suggests that the TV and movie viewing habits of incarcerated criminals perhaps intent on self-education ought to be monitored closely with a view to understanding how behaviour might be "adjusted" following their release.