Could 'CSI' hinder police?

Remove all ads!

everyone must have heared of the CSI tv program and the range of games and merchandise that followed.. ive played the games recently and its given me insight into the methods used by detectives to solve crime, likewise the program shows realistic crime scenes and all show the mistakes made by suspects...

so i wonder, could someone who has plays these games and studied the program create a perfect crime?

 

Good question, though perfect crimes are pretty hard - most of us aren't that methodical or smart or foresightful, and if we were, there would probably be no need to do the crime since we could reach the goal legally.

But I can tell you for sure that CSI hinders prosecutors mightily. The son of a friend is an assistant prosecutor in another state and has many stories of juries who become reluctant to accept the evidence that real-life police work can realistically produce - they want the kind of miracles you see on CSI. In fact it's becoming one of the jury screening questions, I understand: do you watch CSI? Not an automatic exclusion but if the prosecutors know jury members watch it they know they'll have some extra explaining to do.

In that sense it may already be helping the ordinary rather stupid criminal escape conviction.

 

Actually, I seem to recall that CSI and similar shows have already caused some problems, but not in that way. It had more to deal with the fact that even when the case is 100% sure - such as someone was shot, there was only one person besides him in the room and the gun has his fingerprints - lawyers and other people might still request extensive, costy additional research.
Still, I do not doubt that people have already tried and will try to copy methods shown in the show. And I do not doubt that most have worked. And as such, as Tal said, it cannot be a good thing.

 

I heard a story about a guy who robbed a bank, the crime was perfect, the police had no idea who did it, but the thief was so paranoid he didn't use the money for two years because he thought someone was always following him.
After three years he went completely mad and just ran in the nearest police station, confessed everything and asked if their 'agents' could stop following him.
I think he's in the mental hospital now.

My point: There isn't necessarily a perfect criminal even if a perfect crime is possible.

 

Yeah, Blackthorne that's the stuff I was talking about. Dunno where I read about it, though.

 

Years before CSI ever hit the air there were books and classes showing how to catch criminals and, therefore, how to escape and get away with a crime. And they did it correctly. CSI is entertaining (I watch it every Thursday), but it is most definitely not thorough or accurate.

If you depend on a TV show to tell you how to commit the perfect crime, you're probably not smart enough to actually pull it off and think of everything the show doesn't cover.

As for jurors expecting the miracles of a show, it's just another example of entertainment being more important than education in life.

 

but what i fyou were smart enough... but CSI just hammered in those fine details?

 

CSI probably does make things dificult for the police, but preforming the crime would still be nere imposable. You can't account for chance.

 

I've often wondered if the actual police departments depicted on those shows (Miami, et. al.) have the money to afford all those high-tech gadgets and lab equipment. It's a bit like the massive apartments all the stars of "Friends" had. No way could a waitress at a cafe afford an apartment like that.

 

It probably has more effect on juries than anything, as others have said they want the concrete evidence that the CSI teams get (with imaginary instruments/technology sometimes too!).

[ January 21, 2007, 07:18: Message edited by: ChickenIsGood ]

 

I think it was cheaper because it used to belong to Ross and Monica's grandma. Also, they shared the rent. Besides, she started working in Ralph Lauren after

 

I imagine it does hinder them in certain ways but I wouldn't be surprised if it assists the police too. Who knows, perhaps after seeing a CSI screening a would-be criminal rethinks his chances of getting away scott free and decides to go about life legally. *shrug*

 

It's given you insight into the methods the screenwriters portray detectives as using to solve crimes, certainly.

Whether that translates into insight into the actual methods used to solve crimes...

Well, I wouldn't bet my freedom on it.

 

The reason the original CSI is based in Las Vegas is because their Police lab is the most advanced in the country. Also, you have to look at the size of the cities these are based in (Las Vegas, New York, and Miami), large cities that would have significant tax revenue.

Besides, shows like Forensic Files give a lot more information and present it more accurately. And without all the drama to get in the way. If you really want to learn how to get away with a crime from watching tv, watch Forensic Files not CSI.

 

i have not heared of forensic files, but i chose CIS for a reason, while im well aware that there are alot of detailed documentries out there, CIS struck me as a program that inflential minds may view and think "i can do that"

 

While I agree that Forensic Files is a much more accurate portrayal of how police use forensics to solve crimes, the similarities between the two shows end with both being about forensics. While I am not a regular viewer of either program, I have seen both shows.

CSI is a drama, with fictional crimes, fictional criminals and fictional investigators. It is shown on one of the major TV networks (NBC I think), and is the most-watched Thursday night program, and one of the most watched shows overall in the US. The number of viewers is in the millions, espcially considering older episodes are probably on syndication, and shown in countries other than the US.

On the other hand, Forensic Files is more of a historical documentary. It shows how real investigators used forensics to solve actual crimes. The investigators and criminals on the show are real (they use actors for the re-enactments, but the events actually happened). In most cases, the real names of all the people involved are used (the names of the investigators and criminals are always used, but the families' of the victims sometimes do not give permission to use their real names). Also, you'll only see Forensic Files if you have a decent cable package. Forensic Files is shown on channel like the Discovery Channel and the History Channel - so even if you have a basic cable package you probably don't get to see those programs. Their regular viewship is probably in the thousands compared to the many millions of CSI.

I am of the general impression that most police departments do NOT have the type of equipment shown on CSI. Not only do they have every conceivable instrument you could ever want in a forensic lab, all of their instruments are state-of-the-art, including automated equipment in most cases. These instruments cost in some cases over $100,000. So there's no way that any police department is going to spend that kind of money to replace a current piece of equipment that's only a few years old, with the newer model. Especially considering a lot of that equipment wouldn't be used frequently. For lesser used equipment, most police departments contract that work out to private labs on an as-needed basis. The only time you actually buy the instrument is if the cost of contracting out the work exceeds the cost of purchasing and maintaining the instrument.