Radical skepticism and unquestioning credulity are strange
bedfellows in today’s society. We
can’t rely on our own recollections because sometimes we make mistakes. We don’t trust the testimony of
others. It’s not that we
necessarily think others are liars, it’s just that everyone has their own
perspective on the world – their personal narrative.
But at the same time we are experiencing the triumph of
scientific knowledge, often to the detriment of other types of knowledge. Science is concerned with accuracy,
verifiability, and certainty. And
science is indeed magnificent. The
problem is that other types of knowledge have been downgraded. If scientific evidence is triple A
rated, other forms of evidence have junk status.
The CSI Effect
Criminal lawyers have commented on the existence of what
they have termed the CSI effect.
They have theorized that juries have been influenced by the rash of
criminal forensic T.V. shows such as CSI, and now expect heightened scientific
evidence to be presented at trial.
Jurors prone to the CSI effect are also theorized to be more likely to
dismiss other forms of evidence such as eyewitness or circumstantial evidence.
This has led to juries acquitting in cases where scientific
evidence, such as DNA, is not presented, even where other forms of evidence are
presented to the jury. For
example, in a case in Baltimore the defendant was acquitted of murder even
though there were two witnesses to the alleged crime. The jury felt there was a lack of physical evidence. (i) In another case, the jury questioned why
a bloody coat had not been tested for DNA, even though the defendant had
admitted that he owned the coat. (ii)
There is much debate over the existence of the “CSI effect”
(iii), but it points to a preference for scientific evidence over other types
of evidence such as personal testimony.
However, there are many things in life that cannot be proved with
scientific exactness.
Think about how you would prove what you had for breakfast
this morning, or the whole historical endeavor. Are we to say that if it cannot be proven scientifically it
never happened? Of course not.
Science is wonderful, and its proper use in the courtroom
improves the administration of justice – no question. But, to place scientific knowledge on a pedestal all by
itself goes too far.
When many people claim that the central claims of Christianity cannot be proved
because there is no scientific evidence, are they falling victim to a CSI
effect? There may be firm
historical evidence that Jesus existed.
There may be eyewitness reports, from those who changed the whole course
of their lives and died defending it, that Jesus rose from the dead. But, where’s the DNA, the video
evidence.
I submit to you ladies and gentlemen of the jury, two people
may have seen the defendant shoot the victim, but we all know memories are not
infallible. If he’s guilty where’s
the DNA?
We need balance.
Blind allegiance to science allied to thoroughgoing skepticism of other
forms of evidence can lead us to some strange places.
Notes:
(i) Jeffrey
Heindrick, Everyone’s an Expert: The CSI’s
Negative Effect on Juries, Arizona State University – The Triple Helix Fall
2006, available at www.cspo.org/documents/csieffectheinrick.pdf.
(ii) Ibid.
(iii) See
Hon. Donald E. Shelton, The ‘CSI Effect’:
Does It Really Exist?, National Institute of Justice Journal No. 259, March
2008, available at http://www.nij.gov/journals/259/csi-effect.htm.
