O Efeito CSI

Enquanto o vizinho ouve 'Eu não sou cachorro não' (piorando minha crise existencial), eu finalmente encontrei uma matéria rica em exemplos sobre o 'efeito CSI'. É uma pena, mas o público precisa saber que nem os casos não são resolvidos naquela velocidade, nem com toda aquela tecnologia caríssima vista na série CSI. Aliás, os próprios artistas e produtores do show foram ao Congresso Americano solicitar mais verbas pros verdadeiros CSI's. Por favor, vejam os shows criminais como os casos na faculdade de Medicina: aqueles exemplos 'de livro', estudados ao máximo, com especialistas aos montes evitando erros dos novatos, com recursos extras exatamente pra gente aprender o certo (e depois cobrar dos planos de saúde, que não pagam). Ou seja: meros exemplos.

Ten Examples of the CSI Effect at Work
Posted By Marie Owens May 20, 2011

It’s called the “ ‘CSI’ effect”— the distortive lens forensic shows and courtroom dramas create as they weave their webs of murder and mayhem. As a result, jurors file into a courtroom expecting to hear scientific expertise delivered in high-octane testimony, but instead they encounter a mountain of witness testimony and circumstantial evidence. This phenomenon is the beer goggles of jurors and the bane of the prosecution, but is it real? As most people with a criminal justice degree and numerous research studies can confirm, the answer is yes. Yet just what expectations are shattered when jurors expect reasonable doubt to be disproved by DNA evidence, fancy chemical breakdowns and a scientific knowledge base that’s most at home in university labs?
Below are 10 of the most common misconceptions generated by the “ ‘CSI’ effect” as reported by the National Institute of Justice and in numerous media outlets, including USA Today. Individuals don’t have to be dedicated forensic science show aficionados to appreciate the effect science has had on courtroom cases, and the pop culture saturation of these shows means even the most casual viewer will have some very deep-seated beliefs about the role forensic science should place in criminal cases.

1.) DNA is an important part of every case.
According to the National Institute of Justice, a recent study revealed that 22 percent of jurors expect to see DNA evidence presented in every criminal case, though that number jumps to 46 percent for attempted murder cases and 73 percent for sexual assault cases. Yet according to the University of Utah’s Genetic Science Learning Center, the reality is that less than one percent of criminal cases actually involve DNA evidence.
However, only 14 percent of jurors would convict a defendant of rape without scientific evidence such as DNA, even if testimony by the victim said otherwise. In fact, 26 percent of jurors have said that, without scientific evidence, they would definitively find a defendant accused of rape not guilty. Needless to say, this presents a massive problem in cases where the accused may have used a condom or the rape was committed by other than traditional means.

2.) Fingerprints are essential to proving someone was at a crime scene.
In the National Institute of Justice study, 36 percent of respondents felt that fingerprint evidence should be present in every criminal case. This number jumps to 59 percent in theft cases and 71 percent in breaking and entering cases. However, if an individual wearing gloves committed the crime, no fingerprint evidence would be available. For that matter, according to the article “About Fingerprint Analysis and Reliance on Digital Technology” by Michael Cherry and Edward Imwinkelried , the ridge pattern identification method used to identify suspects (which can range from 12 to 20 latent ridges) maybe inaccurate.

3.) If a gun was used, ballistics tests will prove that the suspect used it.
One popular scenario that is often featured on forensic science shows is as follows: A gun is found. A member of the team investigating the case then fires the weapon into ballistics gel to discover the gun’s unique bullet striation pattern. The gun is tested for further evidence, like DNA and fingerprints, which allow the prosecutors to tie the suspect to the weapon beyond a shadow of a doubt. Unfortunately, this rarely happens in the real world, but 32 percent of jurors expect it. In particular, 66 percent expect it in any crime involving a gun, even if the gun wasn’t fired. Obviously, this presents a problem, as armed robbery does not necessarily involve the firing a gun. If no gun was fired, it is impossible to gather any ballistics evidence. While many jurors use common sense and will convict someone of firearm-related crime on the basis of other testimony, the expectation of ballistics-based proof is one that prosecutors must be aware of if they are going to successfully convict a defendant.

4.) Pour caulk into a wound, and you can make a cast of the weapon.
This is one issue that USA Today highlights, and it brings up an important point. Oftentimes TV make it seem like that in cases of murder in which the murder weapon is not present or the bullet has not been found, it’s possible to recreate the weapon that killed the individual by creating a plaster mould of the wound. The reality is that soft tissue is just that, soft. This means it isn’t any more possible to create a cast of weapon that left a soft tissue wound than it is to recreate the spoon used to scoop out a bowl of jell-o. However this hasn’t stopped a jury from asking for proof of the specific weapon that killed an individual.

5.) Eye shifts prove guilt or innocence—and judges accept them.
Neuro-lingusitic programming, also known as those eye shifts and voice stressors designed to predict guilt or innocence, is not a court recognized science. The article in USA Today emphasizes that most judges would toss this evidence out on the spot, and the ones that didn’t would see it tossed out on appeal.

6.) Evidence doesn’t degrade.
The reality is, biological substances break down, iron oxidizes and rain washes plenty of forensic evidence away. Yet, on forensic science shows, none of this seems to happen. As the USA Today article notes, these things are par for the course in the real world. A body found two years after the murder will generally not have any surviving forensic evidence, but that may not be enough to stop a jury from demanding it if the case goes to trial.

7.) Human error doesn’t happen.
The reality is, human error and corruption have affected many forensic tests. This is the reason campaigns such as the Innocence Project exist. Jurors must take human error into account when looking at evidence. Convicting someone simply on the basis of forensic evidence is foolish. A compendium of the evidence should be examined.

8.) Mass spectrometers and scanning electron microscopes are in forensic labs across the country.
At least, that’s a trend prosecutors have noticed being portrayed on TV according to USA Today. However, most labs run on local budgets. Only major universities, federal agencies like the FBI and private sector businesses have the money to buy the fancy equipment seen on TV. Sometimes, juries expect molecular breakdowns of murder weapons, trace evidence and any number of other factors found at a crime scene. The reality is most court cases never go so far as to use this molecular evidence. It’s just not needed.

9.) There’s an expert for everything, and at least one will show up at a criminal trial.
Shoe prints, tire tracks and roundhouse kicks all carry distinctive markers. Forensic science shows teach that they’re the fingerprints of inanimate objects and their presence can convict or exonerate. The reality is, most cases never see any of these experts. It would be superfluous to the bread and butter of the criminal case, witness testimony, that places the individual at or near the scene of the crime and establishes motive.

10.) Forensic evidence comes back immediately.
This is perhaps one of the biggest myths perpetuated by TV shows, and the National Institute of Justice acknowledges it creates a massive problem. The reality is that forensic testing can take weeks and, in the case of DNA, months. In the meantime, a suspect may or may not be arrested and charged. Sometimes, processing isn’t complete before the suspect goes to trial, and the trial will proceed without forensic evidence. The truth is forensic evidence takes more than five minutes to process but it’s far more interesting for results to be quick on TV.

The “ ‘CSI’ effect” is taught in criminology courses and law classes. Defending and prosecuting attorneys have to be aware of it and try to counteract its impact on jurors. More importantly, jurors must be aware of it themselves. They must weigh common sense, motives, circumstantial evidence and witness testimony against any perceived dearth in scientific evidence, and they must remember that the real world doesn’t have the expediency or the neat ending of a TV show.

(não, eu não vou traduzir. Usem o Babel Fish ou o Google Tradutor. O fim do mundo piorou meu humor)

Comentário pessoal: Esqueceram de comentar sobre os advogados que acabam com a reputação do perito (CSI S03E02 - The Accused is Entitled) quando não podem refutar a prova, confundem o júri por causa dos termos técnicos (Bones S01E08 - The Girl in the Fridge), etc, etc. Mas os exemplos estão de bom tamanho.