Forensic Evidence, Genes, and DNA: Enough to Convict?

In crime fiction television dramas like C.S.I. and Without a Trace, DNA and forensic evidence are at the forefront of every episode. But what are the roots of such evidence, and how can they explain our fascination with crime fiction? In “DNA fingerprinting on trial: the dramatic early history of a new forensic technique,” Jay Aronson explores two of the first major trials in the U.K. that were resolved by DNA evidence. In the first case with a Ghanaian boy, serological testing was not enough to prove that the boy was his mother’s son, thus his lawyer was able to find another way. (Serological testing is based on antibodies found in blood serum and its results can be very limited in terms of what it reveals about genetic relationships.) Although Alec Jeffreys, the lead developer of “DNA fingerprinting,” was still testing this new forensic technique in 1984, he took this opportunity to see if it could be put to practical use. He carefully chose this name for the new technique hoping that it “piggyback on the long-standing credibility of traditional fingerprinting” (Aronson 127). The infallibility and objectivity that accompanied DNA fingerprinting due to the media hype was interesting because it was not actually used to solve either case. It was simply the threat of this new technology that allowed the defendant to be acquitted in the first trial and its ability to confirm a suspect’s guilt that allowed the criminal to be convicted in the second trial. Moreover, it is the public interest in DNA and DNA fingerprinting that arose around that time that serves as a means to understand the prevalence of crime fiction drama and the interest in forensic science today. Although science has become equated with truth, it may not be as reliable as people have come to believe.

For the past two decades, the reliability of DNA evidence and its ability to convict and acquit suspects has been put to the test. In high profile cases such as the O.J. Simpson trial, a majority of the evidence used by the prosecution relied on DNA profiles of blood at the scene of the crime. DNA technology was still relatively new, but modern genetics had already been introduced into the world of popular culture, which had its own implications. People began to believe that genes and DNA had all the answers and that they could therefore account for “every aspect of human behavior,” even criminality (Ross 241). DNA was seen as the ultimate truth. As the human genome project was also underway at this time, the craze for technology and the truth continued to grow. The desire to connect genetics with race and intelligence culminated in The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein. This publication tried to make genetic links between intelligence and race, which leads to the idea that the study of genetics may not be as impartial and objective as originally thought. The defense in the Simpson trial raised more doubt against the DNA evidence citing the high rates of error and racial bias in DNA typing. Thus, this was an increasingly difficult decision for the jury when it was time to make a conviction. The trial became one of race and class based on “an enormous amount of scientific testimony” (Ross 249). It raised many questions about the validity and objectivity of DNA evidence in the courtroom in the search for the truth.

This difficulty that jurors face when making a decision, and their supposed increased tendency to acquit suspects has been termed the “C.S.I. effect”. The legitimacy of this effect is, however, somewhat uncertain. The drama of C.S.I. is based upon “forensic and scientific infallibility” (Tyler 1072). The quest for the truth is always based upon hard scientific evidence because rationality is the only thing that can be trusted. Until someone is punished for a crime that he or she commits, there can be no closure. Thus, dramas like C.S.I. are able to provide us with the comfort of apprehending the criminal and end with justice being served. It makes sense that such a drama would be successful in our society that feeds off fear. Although the C.S.I. effect may be plausible, there are many other reasons that may produce a similar effect. When there is decreased faith in our legal system and government to produce justice, science seems to be the only objective authority. Thus, jurors choose to view the evidence presented to them based upon their decision to make a conviction. Their view of the quality of the evidence and sympathy for the defendant are usually major factors in how they decide. Their bias has a large effect on how they view the science. Thus, although this C.S.I. effect seems plausible given the similarity between the effects of exposure to mass media, their own beliefs, and pretrial publicity on a juror’s decision, there are other explanations for this phenomenon.

There is still contention over whether or not C.S.I. and other crime fiction dramas can lead to a decrease in convictions or if the effect is a result of other social changes. Jurors are affected by everything that they see and hear, thus how can they remain unbiased enough to make a decision based upon the evidence presented? Is all scientific information skewed based on the bias of the interpreter? If even DNA is not completely objective, as was mentioned during the O.J. Simpson case when DNA typing was said to be racially, then do we just have to wait until the next forensic technique comes out that will be even better and more accurate? We are constantly searching for the truth to punish the criminal and exonerate the innocent, but if science is not as reliable as previously thought due to all the preconceptions involved, then what basis is there for the truth?