The 'CSI-effect'

Originally airing in October 2000, CBS’s crime drama CSI has attracted a large audience. Viewers can now also watch CSI: New York and CSI: Miami, two series spin-offs. Brian Lowry, in his article “Pondering the Unsolved Mystery of CSI” states that he and others cannot quite understand why the show has become and remained so popular. Despite this lack of understanding, recent Nielsen ratings testify to the show’s long-term success. For the week ending on June 3, 2007 all three versions of the CSI series were ranked in the Top Ten shows viewed for the week. CSI was ranked in second, only falling behind Fox’s medical drama House. CSI: NY came in fifth for the week, and CSI: Miami had the eighth highest number of viewers. It is important to note that CSI is not the only crime drama ranked highly. In this same week over half of the Top 20 most viewed shows also related to crime and forensic science. This list includes shows such as NCIS, Cold Case, Criminal Minds, and Law and Order: SVU. (Source: http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/06/06/nielsen-ratings-for-the-week-ending-june-3/)

Despite an individual’s reason for watching any of these shows, the ratings make it clear. Not only is someone watching CSI, a lot of people are watching CSI and because this is the case, it is important to understand some of the cultural implications of the show. Cavender and Deutsch suggest in “CSI and Moral Authority: The Police and Science” that we are in an era where law enforcement and science seem to have lost some of their moral authority. They conclude that CSI’s ability to offer certainty through evidence and analyzation is a reason for the program’s success. (Cavender and Deutsch 68)

In an effort to attract viewers, TV producers tend to avoid straying too far from the cultural beliefs and assumptions shared by their target audience. This, in turn, allows for cultural assumptions to be reinforced through media. CSI is by no means an exception to this reality. The series reflects cultural views on many issues including crime, race, and gender. Gender roles in CSI relate to “techno-masculinity”, a form of masculinity that prizes intellect and technological knowledge with a lesser emphasis on physical strength. Women in CSI play a critical role in solving many cases, and have the same capabilities as their male counterparts. (Cavender and Deutsch 69) However, I feel it is important to note that while CSI and other modern crime dramas reflect a less sexist mentality, the lead characters of all three versions of the series are male figures. While women are increasingly able to help solve crimes, in many cases, males are still accepted as the lead hero in crime drama.

Crime drama not only reflects previously solidified beliefs held by viewers, it can have an effect on cultural assumptions made by viewers. One belief reiterated throughout CSI, according to Cavender and Deutsch, is that science equals truth and evidence is infallible. This assertion along with the use of physical evidence and technology to solve violent crimes week after week helps to enforce the belief that physical evidence and advanced technology are critical elements in correctly solving a crime. One quote from CSI says, “Evidence only knows one thing: the truth. It is what it is.” (Cavender 75) However, this neglects to take into account that evidence in itself is not what solves a crime. Evidence must be interpreted, and this interpretation may be affected by cultural beliefs of the interpreter. However, CSI fails to take into account the social context in which these interpretations are made. The forensic specialists and the physical evidence they collect are rarely, if ever, called into question. With this in mind, what is the effect of CSI, and forensic fiction in general, on our beliefs about crime, science, and evidence? Do we notice this effect?

Cavender and Deutsch also bring to the forefront a worry that some experts have regarding a problem called the “CSI Effect”. This is the assumption that viewers will be influenced by what they see on CSI and believe that they adequately understand forensic science. The worry is that if this effect does occur, as it is not proven, jurors “now have unreasonable expectations about scientific technology” and expect all cases to be solvable through advanced technology. (Cavender 77) What are the potential consequences of the “CSI Effect” on jurors? What are the implications for solving crimes and justice?