If you’ve ever watched an episode of “CSI,” “Criminal Minds” or “NCIS,” you’ve probably wondered how investigators manage to solve an entire murder case in less than an hour.
They find a fingerprint, run it through a computer and suddenly have a suspect’s name, address and entire criminal history. A DNA sample gets sent to the lab, and the results somehow come back before the next commercial break.
And just like that, the case is solved.
As someone majoring in forensic science, I hate to break it to you, but that’s not exactly how things work.
Don’t get me wrong, I love a good crime show. But after learning more about forensic science, I’ve realized that Hollywood takes quite a few creative liberties when it comes to solving crimes.
One of the biggest misconceptions crime shows create is how quickly investigators can analyze DNA.
On television, someone collects a sample, hands it to a forensic scientist and receives a perfect DNA match almost immediately.
In reality, DNA analysis involves several steps, including extracting DNA, measuring how much is present, amplifying specific regions and interpreting the results.
According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, DNA evidence can also be difficult to interpret when samples contain genetic material from multiple people.Not every sample produces a usable DNA profile, and not every profile leads to a match.
So, unfortunately, there isn’t a magical computer that identifies every suspect within seconds.
Another classic crime show moment is when investigators find a perfectly visible fingerprint on practically any surface.
They dust for prints, lift one and immediately identify the person responsible.
But fingerprints aren’t always that cooperative.
In reality, fingerprints left behind at crime scenes can be partial, smudged or distorted. Sometimes, there isn’t enough detail to make a meaningful comparison.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology explains that fingerprint examiners compare characteristics such as ridge patterns, endings and splits when examining prints.
Even when fingerprints can be compared, the process isn’t completely free from human error.
Finding a fingerprint can provide valuable evidence, but it doesn’t automatically explain when or why someone touched an object.
Crime shows love making every piece of evidence seem like the missing puzzle piece.
A single strand of hair? Suspect identified.
A mysterious stain? Case closed.
A shoeprint? Apparently, investigators know exactly who wore the shoes.
Unfortunately, forensic evidence isn’t always that specific.
For example, microscopic hair examination can help investigators compare characteristics between samples, but it cannot reliably identify one particular person as the source of a hair.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology explains that older claims about identifying individuals through microscopic hair comparisons are no longer considered scientifically valid.
That’s why forensic scientists have to be careful about the conclusions they make.
Evidence can support an investigation without providing a definite answer.
Here’s where things get even more interesting.
Crime shows have become so influential that researchers have studied something called the “CSI effect.”
The idea is that watching forensic television shows might influence what people expect from real criminal investigations and courtroom evidence.
According to the National Institute of Justice, researchers surveyed 1,027 prospective jurors to examine whether watching shows such as “CSI” affected their expectations of forensic evidence.
The study found that viewers generally had higher expectations for scientific evidence. However, those expectations had little, if any, effect on their willingness to convict someone.
So, while the idea of the CSI effect is widely discussed, research doesn’t necessarily support every claim made about it.
Still, it’s interesting to think about how much television can influence our understanding of science.
I think one of the reasons crime shows exaggerate forensic science is because the real process doesn’t always make for dramatic television.
Nobody wants to spend an entire episode watching someone carefully document evidence, complete paperwork or wait for laboratory results.
But those steps are important.
Forensic science involves collecting, preserving, examining and interpreting evidence while following procedures designed to protect its integrity.
Unlike television, not every investigation ends with a clear answer.
Sometimes, evidence is inconclusive. Sometimes, investigators need additional information. Other times, a piece of evidence simply doesn’t tell them as much as they hoped.
That doesn’t make forensic science any less interesting.
If anything, I think understanding how much work goes into examining evidence makes the field even more fascinating.
At the end of the day, crime shows aren’t completely scientifically accurate. They’re entertainment, after all.
I still enjoy watching investigators dramatically announce that they’ve found the missing piece of evidence, even when I know the process probably wouldn’t happen that way.
But there’s a difference between enjoying a fictional investigation and assuming that’s how forensic science works in real life.
The next time you’re watching a crime show and someone identifies a suspect using a blurry fingerprint in approximately 30 seconds, just remember that real forensic science requires a little more patience.
And probably a lot more paperwork.
What’s your favorite crime show? Let us know by tagging @HerCampusSJSU!