Abstract
Reviewed by: Jenny Wise, University of New England, Australia
Until recently, there has been little research on the effect of new technologies or the CSI Effect on offenders or prisoners. The questions of how prisoners approach plea bargaining, what role new technologies have played in the decision to enter into a plea, what impact popular media has on offenders’ knowledge of crime scene management, and what offenders’ views are on different types of forensic evidence and databases remained unanswered. Tracing Technologies: Prisoners’ Views in the Era of CSI seeks to address that gap. The critical answers to the above questions are what make this book so important.
The book draws on data from 57 qualitative interviews with prison inmates in two male prisons in Austria (collected 2006–2007) and three male prisons in Portugal (collected in 2009). Helena Machado and Barbara Prainsack were careful to recruit a cross-section of participants, with the notable exception that all participants were male (male prisoners in Austria and Portugal accounted for 95% of all prisoners during data collection). For example, prisoners were included in cases where bio-information had played a significant role in the investigation and/or trial, and also those prisoners where no bio-information was present in their investigation/trial. The researchers include detailed notes about the characteristics of their prisoners, including name (pseudonym), year of birth, crime that led to imprisonment, sentence, presence of fingerprints or DNA, and also a ‘notes’ section. This brief snapshot of the research provides readers with crucial information about how forensics can be used in an investigation/trial and how offenders perceive such evidence.
By providing comparative data from Portugal and Austria, the authors are able to indicate that there are ‘some shared public imaginaries facilitated by the global success of American technocentric crime drama’ (pp. 1–2), as well as highlighting significant differences, such as the support within Portugal, or lack of support within Austria, for a universal database. As the authors note, these similarities and differences in opinion provide useful insight into the ‘effects of different legal, political, discursive, and historical configurations on the perceptions of crime scene technologies, and their use within the criminal justice system’ (p. 2). As such, Chapters 1, 2, and 3 provide a strong context that enables the reader to understand why opinions may be similar, or differ, according to the legal structure and development of the countries’ use of forensic technologies.
Building on that context, Chapter 4 examines prisoners’ reflections of how forensic science techniques and evidence is portrayed within the media. This is particularly important when there have been claims that offenders have learned how to ‘cover their tracks’ from shows such as CSI. Machado and Prainsack provide further evidence that prisoners learn about forensics and crime scene management from popular media sources such as CSI, news broadcasts, and documentaries. For example, Daniel knew that ‘CSI is not that scientifically rigorous’ and therefore that media coverage of real cases was more reliable and ‘could teach criminals more effectively about how criminal investigation operates’ (p. 59). More of the prisoners learned about crime and crime scene management from media than by talking with fellow prisoners. Chapter 4 goes on to discuss how prisoners use this knowledge.
In Chapter 5, the authors examine the fallacy that ‘the evidence doesn’t lie’, finding that many of the prisoners within their study also believed that DNA evidence was the most reliable form of evidence. Later, Chapter 7 strengthens this analysis by exploring how prisoners use forensic evidence in attempts to prove their innocence.
Politicians and law enforcement agencies argue that forensic databases are important for not only catching criminals but also for deterring future offenders (or repeat offenders). However, the data presented in Chapter 6 challenge these assumptions. The respondents explained that offenders often commit crimes on impulse rather than weighing the risks and benefits of crime. Other explanations offered for crime included: psychological problems, sociological reasons, and drug addiction. If these forces produce crime, offenders will commit crimes, regardless of the presence of databases. There was also a belief that ‘professional criminals’ would still be able to avoid detection and that databases would be catching more ‘lower class criminals’. As the authors point out, this provides further evidence for the need to review the ‘authoritative certainty associated with science’ and for more detailed research ‘on the contribution of bioinformation to crime prevention and crime solving’ (p. 107).
Chapter 8 provides the reader with prisoners’ insights into police investigations. While some of the prisoners made claims of police planting and fabricating evidence, there were also claims from other prisoners that forensic evidence, and DNA in particular, meant that police investigators were ‘forced… to carry out a thorough investigation, rather than going for the most likely suspect and trying to “trick” the suspect to confess to the crime’ (p. 130). The chapter also discusses the difference that respondents perceived in being asked to provide a DNA sample to a fingerprint. Respondents distinguished providing a DNA sample drawn from within the body and a physical imprint – which can be changed or manipulated at a crime scene – that is left behind.
This book provides a unique and fascinating insight into how some male prisoners in Austria and Portugal view forensic evidence and DNA evidence in particular. While these interviews cannot be wholly generalised to the wider prison population, the findings do indicate further areas of research and policy development. This book is an important contribution for legal practitioners, prisoners, and researchers or students interested in the effects of forensic science on the criminal justice system.