What Do We Owe the Public?

 When I say “What do we owe the public?” I’m not talking about our readers. To them we owe our best effort. It’s not our job to write the book they want; our task is to make the book we chose to write as good as our skills can make it, every time. There is no excuse to do other.

 

What I’m asking here is, “What we owe the public at large?” We speak directly only to our readers, but they interact with countless others. What our readers pick up from us is always at risk of extending beyond our intended reach.

 

Let’s take what has become known as the “CSI Effect” in criminal courts. The CBS phenomenon “CSI” and its spinoffs have led to jurors refusing to convict unless the prosecution presents compelling DNA or trace evidence. A lot of cases, maybe most, don’t have the forensic version of a smoking gun, nor do many cities (read: none) have the resources depicted in the shows. The situation has gotten so bad judges now include warnings against it when giving jury instructions.

 

Why is that? Enough people have seen enough stuff “CSI” puts forward as “how this works” that they think these things have to be there for a defendant to be guilty. In fact, any such lack does not imply anything except there was no DNA/fiber/fingerprint evidence at the scene. Such an absence does not nullify a potential mountain of other evidence.

 

Why has this become such an issue? Because, for all the entertainment value shows like “CSI” and “NCIS” and others of that ilk provide, things don’t work that way. DNA and trace evidence results don’t take as long as they used to, but they still don’t come back in a few days, and they sure as hell don’t come back while the detective is standing there waiting. To manufacture such beliefs creates unrealistic expectations in the public’s mind. DNA and trace evidence can be instrumental in getting a conviction, but they rarely come through in time to identify who to arrest. Even if they do, the police need a suspect to compare it to.

 

Magical computer work is another. How many shows have you seen where the detectives stumble around for 45 minutes before happening onto a tiny piece of evidence or off-hand comment they can give to their computer savant and say, “See wat you can do with this?” Said savant types a little, may grunt something like “gotcha” under his or her breath, the turns around to tell the star of the show the suspect’s

·       Name

·       Date and place of birth

·       Parents

·       Siblings

·       Education record

·       Military record

·       Employment history

·       Arrests, convictions, time served (both where and when)

·       Known associates

·       Recent sexual partners

·       Hobbies

·       Last known address

·       Where he is now

·       Where he’s going to be by the time the cops can get there

That’s an exaggeration, but not as much as it should be.

 

There are other examples. What does it take to get a search warrant or a wiretap? Granted, these are tedious processes and no one wants to see how that sausage gets made. That said, the delays and work inherent in getting them should at least be addressed.

 

Why do you think people assume police brutality when five cops take down a single suspect? Because they see cops do it alone all the time on TV. They don’t see that going one-on-one for an arrest is not only dangerous for the cop, it’s dangerous for the suspect. The solo cop must beat the suspect into submission to take him in, all the while fighting for his own life because the party’s over if this skel grabs the cop’s gun. Five cops show up to take him, it’s going to be a much shorter fight, and shorter fights mean fewer chances for injury on either side. That’s if there’s a fight at all, as even a hardened criminal is a lot less likely to try to fight it out at five-to-one against.

 

Medical shows have similar issues that can lead to people thinking they know more about medicine than they do, which is a potentially dangerous situation. There are those who argue with their doctor over a diagnosis because they saw someone with what they think are similar symptoms on “House” and what that poor bastard had was way more serious than the quack standing in front of them is willing to admit.

 

Don’t believe me? Much like the “CSI Effect,” there’s a medical equivalent known as “60 Minutes Syndrome,” in which calls to doctors to check for a specific disease spike immediately after “60 Minutes” runs a segment on it. It’s great that some people bring this to their doctor’s attention when they might not have otherwise, but there is also an apparently natural tendency to take any symptoms one might be having and turn them into a warning sign for this disease. “Man, I’ve been tired all weekend. Stiff and sore. Ohmigod! Scott Pelley says I have Lyme Disease.” Never mind that said viewer spent the past week cutting down trees and clearing brush from the new acre of ground he added to his yard.

 

I hear you. “We don’t have time to go around all that. Readers and viewers want action.” I get that. Honest to God I do. But to let these convenient devices take the place of proper plotting and storytelling is lazy writing, especially when done to the extent that readers think things really work that way. At least make a nod to reality and craft a reason why what you’re doing is the exception, and the potential effects on the investigation. We’ll all be better off.