: The Blawgraphy
Life of a Law Student, University of Houston Law Center

Please note: I'm no longer updating this particular blog, but keep it around for archival purposes. Visit me at the current blog at

The CSI Effect

By: Luke Gilman | Other Posts by
Go to Comments | One Comment

Jeffrey Toobin reports in the New Yorker: The CSI Effect: The truth about forensic science. Judges and prosecutors complain that the show is raising jurors’ expectations of the forensic evidence that should be available and presented to convict.

“I just met with the conference of Louisiana judges, and, when I asked if ‘CSI’ had influenced their juries, every one of them raised their hands,” Carol Henderson, the director of the National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law, at Stetson University, in Florida, told me. “People are riveted by the idea that science can solve crimes.”

The same words often carry different meanings in science and the law, reflecting a difference in approach that can be problematic.

The fictional criminalists speak with a certainty that their real-life counterparts do not. “We never use the word ‘match,’ ” Faber, a thirty-eight-year-old Harvard graduate, told me. “The terminology is very important. On TV, they always like to say words like ‘match,’ but we say ‘similar,’ or ‘could have come from’ or ‘is associated with.’ ”

Virtually all the forensic-science tests depicted on “CSI”—including analyses of bite marks, blood spatter, handwriting, firearm and tool marks, and voices, as well as of hair and fibres—rely on the judgments of individual experts and cannot easily be subjected to statistical verification.

Yet not only do the words of forensic science and the certainty they are meant to convey give rise to problems, some of the essential concepts of forensic science have come under fire.

“There are really two kinds of forensic science,” says Michael J. Saks, a professor of law and psychology at Arizona State University, and a prominent critic of the way such science is used in courtrooms. “The first is very straightforward. It says, ‘We have a dead body. Let’s see what chemicals are in the blood. Is there alcohol? Cocaine?’ That is real science applied to a forensics problem. The other half of forensic science has been invented by and for police departments, and that includes finger-prints, handwriting, tool marks, tire marks, hair and fibre. All of those essentially share one belief, which is that there are no two specimens that are alike except those from the same source.” Saks and other experts argue that there is no objective basis for making the link between a “q” and a “k.” “There is no scientific evidence, no validation studies, or anything else that scientists usually demand, for that proposition—that, say, two hairs that look alike came from the same person,” Saks said. “It’s the individualization fallacy, and it’s not real science. It’s faith-based science.”

Hair analysis has given rise to a particularly contentious debate both among forensic scientists and in the criminal justice system that must decide if it will continue to rely on it and under what circumstances.

Bookmark this Page:
  • digg
  • Furl
  • Ma.gnolia
  • Reddit
  • YahooMyWeb
  • e-mail
  • Facebook
  • Live
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Category: criminal law, science and law


One Response

  1. Mark Bennett says:

    “Faith-based science.” Gotta love it!

Leave a Reply