Police Pictures -- The Photograph as Evidence

List of Alternative Terms for “Flashback”:
Tell Back
Flash Memory Skethes/Stories/Scrapbook
Flash Déjà vu
ReCogImprov


Police Pictures – The Photograph as Evidence

Even before the advent of photography as a method of crime scene investigation, criminals have been identified as foreigners who simultaneously attract and frighten people. In the past, people witnessed death and violence through public spectacles such as gladiatorial contests and public tortures. Now, through the mediation of photography, people experience violence and see the criminal in a profoundly mysterious way: “The crime photo gives us imaginative access to savagery; the mug shot becomes a mirror of what we fear may reside within us. Between chaos and reason lies the photograph” (Phillips 13). Photographs of crime scenes seemed to present a sacred portrayal of beauty.

Preceding studies of the psychological complexity of human behavior, most people believed that the innate nature of the criminal was formulated and manifested through physical appearances. This belief is clearly shown in Panorama of Man, the frontispiece of the book Heads and Faces and How to Study Them: A Manual of Phrenology and Physiognomy for the People (Phillips 13). In this illustrated spectrum of racial (red, brown, white, yellow, and black), gender, age, moral (pious, worldly-minded, and vicious), and mental (wise, ignorant, insane, and idiotic) differences, the “lower” orders appear menacing and animal-like. With the birth of terms such as “social Darwinism” and “survival of the fittest,” the Victorian social philosophy was gradually shaped: one assured himself of his place in the world by pointing to all he was not (Phillips 14).

In Essays of Physiognomy, Johann Kaspar Lavater’s assumption “of the Harmony between Moral Beauty and Physical Beauty” meant that every morally good person was attractive, while every morally bad person appeared to be morally bad (Phillips 15). Interested in Lavater’s physiognomical studies, Franz Joseph Gall formulated phrenology and believed that he could read a person’s personality through the exterior formations of the skull bone (Phillips 16). Charles Darwin also believed that one’s inner character could be read through facial expressions. Keeping these theories in mind, Cesare Lombroso developed his own theory; he saw innate criminal traits as “stigmata” and considered the criminal to be an example of biological atavism that had a lower evolutionary status: “The criminal [is] an atavistic being who reproduces in his person the ferocious instincts of primitive humanity and the inferior animals” (Phillips 22). In contrast to Lombroso’s theory, Jacob Riis focused not on individual will but rather on the social circumstances that fostered criminal activity. These claims gradually developed into the study of criminal anthropology.

In The Criminal, Havelock Ellis provided a summary of criminal anthropology and asked the following questions: who is the criminal, what are his distinguishing characteristics, and how do we identify him. Ellis also claimed that “Aristotle… [recognized] the physiognomic signs of habits, vices, and crimes, including many signs that are in accordance with modern scientific observation, [and] observed a connection between the shape of the head and the mental disposition” (Ellis 27). Therefore, a new type of criminal documentation began with Alphonse Bertillon’s anatomical profiles, complete with detailed descriptions, measurements, and two photographs. As the number of criminals increased, these standard mug shots (also known as portrait parlés or “speaking likenesses”) and measurements became harder to catalog and retrieve. In addition, two men, both named Will West and with approximately the same measurements, were sent to the same prison in 1903. Bertillon’s system was therefore discredited.

Eventually, photography became the “triumph of modern science” that made it possible “to preserve permanent and unmistakable traces of a human being” (Thomas 111). Edgar Allan Poe also epitomized photography as “truth itself in the supremeness of perfection” and “a form of representation that superseded language in its ability to approximate reality and achieve a ‘perfect identity of aspect with the thing represented’” (Thomas 111). Photography replaced paintings and illustrations as a more accurate representation – a better imitation – of its referent. Since the camera was regarded as a machine of scientific rationality that captured every moment perfectly, photographs were seen as objective tools for discerning truth. Early applications of photography in criminal study included daguerreotype portraits of criminals (such as Matthew Brady’s photographs of the criminals of Blackwell Island’s prison) and “rogues’ galleries” (which comprised of cartes-de-visites).

Attempting to visualize criminal types, Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin, developed a type of composite photograph that “achieved a level of reality and truth superior to what its individual subjects could by revealing through the machine what the natural eye cannot see”; he demonstrated how individuals deviate from central “types” even though they are inherently similar (Thomas 126). This illustrates a “crucial paradox”: while there might be a “generalizable” criminal type with a certain set of bodily traits, deviant individuals can still be isolated from the type through their absolute unique identity. He observed that the features of the composites were much better looking compared to those of the components: “The special villainous irregularities in the latter have disappeared, and the common humanity that underlies them has prevailed. They represent, not the criminal, but the man who is liable to fall into crime” (Phillips 22). Galton was also an advocate of the human eugenics movement; he traced the aristocratic upper-class English to the “ideal” (albeit extinct) ancient Greek and expressed his fear about the demise of the white race.

Havelock Ellis had defined the criminal body as “an exotic, non-white, non-European, foreign body” (Thomas 210). Louis Agassiz, a “special creationist,” had also had a fascination with racial evaluation of African Americans, Asians, and Native Americans (Phillips 17). In Great Britain, due to the pursuit of new imperialism, the detection of criminal identity went hand-in-hand with the suppression of foreign nationalities. Criminal deviance became associated with issues of national security; as intellectuals romanticized “the foreigner” as belonging to a special class or race, violence in the cities was blamed on foreigners such as immigrants. This racial prejudice became the basis of Galton’s version of “great expectations”: he expected and attempted to distinguish racial elements in fingerprints.

As the public’s interest in crime heightened, subjects of death and violence seemed to be the preferred sources for the aesthetic expression of photography: “Photographs were a particularly powerful vehicle for creating vivid, larger-than-life characters that would arouse more interest – and sell more newspapers – than well-reasoned reporting ever could” (Squiers 42). For example, when a woman framed the death of John Dillinger (criminal with the highest-profile killing), his “manhood [was] ridiculed” and tremendous publicity was generated for J. Edgar Hoover, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 1924 until 1972. Photographs of the dead Dillinger demonstrated the authority of law enforcers and created the illusion of social stability and justice (Squiers 48).

Since detectives and photography were both “fashionable novelties of the 1840s and 1850s,” metaphorical connections between literary detectives and actual photographs surfaced: “The detective’s eye functions like a camera, taking in everything and leaving upon his mind something akin to a photographic image” (Haworth-Booth 39). For example, as “the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has ever seen,” Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes often gazes through the lens of a magnifying class, presenting himself as a camera-like instrument of inspection. By using logic, rationality, and intuition, he successfully reads the criminal bodies (“books that do not permit itself to be read”) and determine the identity of the criminal (Thomas 204). Through these literary detectives, the transition of forensics from an objective science into a subjective art is demonstrated.

Although photographs were perceived to be impartial, interpretation is now known to be highly subjective, based entirely on one’s personal, socio-economic, and cultural experiences. From Galton’s attempted criminal-typing to theories of the “criminal chromosome,” scientific theories about criminal deviance have always been susceptible to bias. Is there really a gene for everything? Is there really a way to determine criminality through physical appearances? Are there really “natural-born killers” with tainted blood? How can we use technologies such as photography to solve crime while remaining free of bias? In addition, since privacy is such an important concept now, by taking photographs of suspects, how can we protect the privacy of foreigners while protecting ourselves from the criminal? And according to the Victorian social philosophy, are we taking photographs of criminals just to keep them on the outskirts of our society and assure ourselves that they are “not us”?

Felice Frankel - Science Photographer - New York Times

Felice Frankel - Science Photographer. She is not just showing us how science 'actually' is, because she is making decisions about what and how to photograph her pieces - and she works with the scientists to develop new ways of seeing and recording their findings. Many of her most famous photographs were actually amended and altered in some way and yet they impact our understanding of how things might or should look. Gorgeous photographs included - check out the slide show also.

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?

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?

Newsweek Article

Happened to see this in an office today, it's the cover story from the May 21st, 2007 Newsweek:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18618970/site/newsweek/

I'd say this shows a serious cultural change (I'd say improvement, some conservative fundamentalists might disagree) from 30 years ago when the term transgender didn’t even exist – much less have a place on the front of Newsweek. I was wondering, though, why they refer to Hayes, the first example, as “he” even after having the surgery to become physically female? I thought that might point to a flaw in the article, but later on they referred to people, like 6-year-old Jona (who hasn't even had surgery), using pronouns fitted to their internal gender rather than biological anatomy. Probably to avoid confusing people from the beginning and leading them into a better understanding the plasticity of gender.

I really liked the quote, "Gender is a way of making the world secure," from feminist scholar Judith Butler. That's especially visible when you look at the way males tend to interract competitively - attacking each other's masculinity using feminine terms like, "you throw like a girl, pussy." The fact that such behavior is so prevalent could highlight undercurrents of insecurity - attacking a man's gender makes his world seem less secure. Of course, part of it comes from how ingrained that type of bantering is in our culture. Question to ponder: are actions like laughing at a guy who does something considered feminine, or telling sexist jokes done more for creating a community through labelling of an "other", or a way of re-affirming one's gender to oneself and to others? And, do those jokes generally have the effect of reinforcing existent stereotypes and power dynamics, or deflating tension caused by those power dynamics? Or none of the above?

The fact that they're letting transgendered people compete in the Olympics is pretty interresting as well.

6 Billion Bits of Data About Me, Me, Me! - New York Times

Have you been to a tarot card reader and afraid of your future? Well now you can change your genetic destiny by reading and interpreting your code:6 Billion Bits of Data About Me, Me, Me!

Silence of the lambs, The Masculine and Feminine Gaze

In the movie Silence of the Lambs, the director portrays Clarice Starling both as an object targeted by masculine gazes and as a source of feminine gaze. Under these masculine gazes, she shows her determination and strength. With her feminine gaze, she looks upon her object to solve the Buffalo Bill case through her sympathy for the victims and her ability.

Despite Clarice Starling’s intelligence as an FBI agent, few male characters in the movie treat her equally and with respect. Most of the males consider her as an object of interest. Although in many cases she is subjected to other males’ masculine gaze, she is able to use her intelligence to rebut their advances. For example, when she comes to check in with Chilton, Chilton’s first remark about her is, “We’ve had lot of detectives here, but I can’t remember one so attractive….It is Miss Sterling, isn’t it? …… Is there someplace I could call you in Washington for a follow-up, later on?” Instead of noticing her task, Chilton harasses Starling by commenting on her appearance. He calls her by the wrong name while stressing her title as Miss, indicating his lack of respect to her. He also teases her by stating her name in a rhetorical question. He advances even further by requesting to meet with her after she returns to Washington. Starling proves her ability as a FBI agent and shows her strength by first gaining respect from Dr.Lecter and then by deciphering the clues Dr.Lecter gives her. Chilton resents Sterling’s achievement because of her gender and her rejection to his sexual request.

Although Sterling is able to gain respect from Dr.Lecter, Dr.Lecter is very hostile to her at the beginning. There is a period of complete silence before Dr.Lecter first comments on her: “….. Do you know what you look like to me, with your good bag and your cheap shoes? You look like a rube. A well-scrubbed, hustling rube with a little taste.” Unlike Chilton who teases Sterling about her femininity, Lecter tries to defeat her by sharply pointing out her weakness and her purpose for visiting him. Yet Sterling fights back by asking, “Are you strong enough to point that high-powered perception at yourself?” As the movie later shows, many other men try to secure their masculine gaze on her either by questioning her ability, such as when she orders a room of men to leave so they can examine the body of a victim, or by teasing her feminine beauty, such as when the insect researcher steadily stares at her face. Toward the end of the movie, the director figuratively illustrates that Sterling has won the battle against the masculine gaze by depicting Buffalo Bill using the infrared binocular to try to gain an advantage over her in the dark basement. However, Buffalo Bill eventually fails to harm Sterling before she kills him because what he seems is her reflection in a mirror, that is, he underestimates the strength and determination inside her and has only looked at her physical appearance in appraising her.

While she is an object of the masculine gaze, she is able to track down Buffalo Bill with a feminine gaze. When none of her male counterparts notice, she discovers the moth in the victim’s throat, which later serves as the key in identifying Buffalo Bill. With the clue provided by Lecter, Starling begins to see Buffalo Bill from the victim’s eyes. She visits the victim’s home and walks in her room, trying to experience the victim’s life and to see what the victim sees everyday. She also talks to the victim’s friend in order to see who the victim’s friends are, which eventually leads her to Buffalo Bill’s house. In the movie, the director juxtaposes the actions of Sterling with her male boss’s to show the difference between the investigation results done by Sterling’s sympathetic feminine gaze and by her boss’s masculine gaze. Although equipped with modern technologies and with suggestions from his fellow male FBI agent, her boss is unable to find Buffalo Bill, while Sterling, with nothing but her sympathies and her determination, is able to kill him at the end.

Although the movie portrays the masculine gaze imposed on her more dramatically than her feminine gaze, her feminine gaze plays an essential and subtle role in helping her gaining respect from Dr.Lecter and in eventually tracking down Buffalo Bill.