Published: November 28, 2009 09:47 pm      

TV’s crime dramas affecting reality

Purdue study finds shows influence perception of justice system

Researchers rest their case: TV consumption predicts opinions about crime and the people who fight it.

A recent study by two Purdue University researchers revealed that people who watch forensic and crime dramas on TV are more likely than non-viewers to have a distorted perception of America’s criminal justice system.

Because millions of people tune into shows such as “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation,” “Law & Order,” “Cold Case” and “The Closer,” understanding the way they influence people is important, says Glenn Sparks, a professor of communication who studies mass media effects.

The TV crime dramas have inspired many to pursue careers in forensic science and law enforcement, but what are some of their other effects?

“We found that people who watch these shows regularly are more likely to overestimate the frequency of serious crimes, misperceive important facts about crime and misjudge the number of workers in the judicial system,” Sparks said in a news release.

The study, conducted by Sparks and doctoral student Susan Sarapin, surveyed 103 adults in Tippecanoe County about their crime-television show viewing and their perceptions of crime and the judicial system.

“Many people die as a result of being murdered in these types of shows, and we found the heavy TV-crime viewers estimated two and a half times more real-world deaths due to murder than non-viewers,” Sarapin said.

“People’s perceptions also were distorted in regards to a number of other serious crimes. Heavy TV-crime viewers consistently overestimated the frequency of crime in the real world.”

Viewers of crime shows also misjudged the number of law enforcement officers and attorneys in the total work force. Lawyers and police officers each make up less than 1 percent of the work force, but those surveyed estimated it at more than 16 percent and 18 percent, respectively, Sarapin said.

The viewing of crime drama also can shape opinions about the world in general, Sparks said.

“This kind of television viewing can lead to ‘mean world syndrome,’ where people start to think about the world as a scary place,” Sparks said. “Some people develop a fear of victimization, and this belief can affect their feelings of comfort and security.”

The influence of fictional crime shows is something those in law enforcement have been aware of for years. Many refer to it as the “CSI Effect,” which shows up throughout investigations and in the courtroom.

For Cass County chief deputy prosecutor Lisa Swaim, the issue arises during jury trials.

In her experience, more and more jurors expect irrefutable scientific evidence in every case even when the prosecution has eyewitness testimony from a victim and/or police officer.

Jurors have asked why a police officer did not fingerprint the inside of a stolen car after pulling it over and arresting the alleged thief who was driving.

Swaim said budget and time constraints do not permit that kind of testing in every case nor should it be necessary. She has noticed jurors considering eyewitness testimony less than scientific evidence and when there is little or no scientific evidence presented, police and the prosecution have been criticized for not doing a thorough enough job.

Some jurors believe themselves to be experts in the collection of DNA evidence and fingerprints because they watch shows like “CSI: Miami.” Many of the techniques are either fiction or so exotic and costly they are not feasible, Swaim said.

Indiana has only two crime labs, located at state police posts in Indianapolis and Lowell. Counties are limited on the number of items they can submit, and unlike on TV, DNA analysis takes an average of six months compared to just minutes on the shows.

The researchers plan to focus on how attitudes and beliefs formed by watching crime shows translate to actual proceedings in the courtroom.

“Conventional wisdom in law enforcement suggests that people tend to be acquitted by juries when there is not much physical evidence and are convicted more in trials that have such evidence,” Sarapin said. “The reality is that few crimes have hard, scientific evidence such as ballistics, gunshot residue or DNA evidence. And some states even allow the juror screening process to include questions about their television viewing. There are more questions for us to ask regarding what kind of an effect this has on people, especially jurors.”

• Kevin Lilly is news editor of the Pharos-Tribune. He can be reached at 574-732-5117 or kevin.lilly@pharostribune.com.