I can't imagine that this is unexpected, nor that surprising.<p>I served on a jury nearly 20 years ago for a criminal case. And the biggest thing at the time, if you recall that long ago, was the biggest shows in TV were CSI and Law & Order. I certainly watched them a fair amount.<p>Both, and the myriad of spin off and other shows in the same vein, presented a flashy and scientifically certain view of law enforcement.<p>I bring up my time on that jury because the lawyers both spent a _huge_ amount of time preempting everyone's questions about why there wasn't any conclusive "scientific" evidence. No finger prints, no weapons marks, no expert testimony, etc.<p>It turns out real life is far more messy than a 30-60 minute tv drama.<p>So as CSI, et. al. gave us these unrealistic fever dreams about how crime is solved in the real world, so too do "True Crime" stories give us an unrealistic view of what happens out there in the real world.
I've said before, and I'll repeat here:<p>After serving on a jury I have only the following advice:
Stay away from the criminal justice system as much as you can. Once you are in a courtroom on a jury trial, you are effectively a coin toss from prison.<p>The amount of uninformed opinions and plain old charisma involved in deciding a case is just mind boggling. There are no certainties, just people reliving their trauma and deciding whether or not the person they see in the courtroom looks like a person that would cause that trauma.
> When it comes to the courtroom, she says she has seen a shift in day-to-day proceedings with a "healthy skepticism" toward police and prosecutors, which she attributes to the popularity of true crime content.<p>I'm more inclined to attribute this to the fact that when everyone got a high-resolution video camera in their pocket, we got no new compelling evidence for UFOs but <i>lots</i> of it for police brutality.<p>They primed the pump, now they're complaining they're wet.
This article mentions the podcast Serial several times, then later says this:<p>> He says the genre focuses on outlier situations — cases that feature the "unresolved nature of the crime," the "grisly or more so shocking nature of the criminal conduct" and "extensive media coverage."<p>The first season of Serial, which I assume is what they mean since that's the famous one everyone listened to, <i>is</i> about an unsolved and reasonably grisly murder case. (Never mind the fact that it's a really story about the legal proceedings surrounding the case and our criminal justice system as a whole, not a voyeuristic slasherfest like so many true crime stories are.)<p>But there have been several more seasons of Serial since then, including the third season, which focuses on a number of completely ordinary, mundane cases from a single courthouse in Ohio—except what turns out to be shocking is how even these ordinary cases, run-of-the-mill trials and sentencings that never would've been on anyone's radar, are subject to the whims of random judges and cops with no oversight.<p>It's not that the original murder story is remarkable for having a questionable trial with so many unanswered questions; <i>so many</i> people's experiences with our justice system are equally arbitrary and confusing, and for much smaller charges. What's remarkable about the season one case is its degree, not its kind.<p>(As an aside, people who are REALLY into the "is he innocent/guilty" posturing for the season one case, and are otherwise a fan of those voyeuristic slasherfest-type stories, didn't seem to like season three. Which is a shame since I thought it was fascinating, and arguably more horrifying, since your odds of being arrested under dubious charges and sentenced by an untouchable judge seem a lot higher than your odds of being randomly murdered in the woods.)
True crime is about real life. Of course true crime stories affect real life.<p>A more unexpected and interesting headline would be if fictional crime stories were affecting real life (which they do by giving people unrealistic expectations of detectives and crime labs and witness testimony etc).<p>This is liking saying that water affects moisture.
Law enforcement is treated with more skepticism, and judges are more worried about being held to account for their decisions. It’s hard to see either of these developments as anything but positive.<p>The rise of amateur sleuthing is less clear. I can’t actually think of a single case where the true crime community actually solved a case that the police couldn’t. But you regularly see a mob of weirdos going after innocent people and trying to ruin their lives.
First time i've seen cbc lite. I do like.<p>'true crime is somehow creating more crime for the justice system?' Is this the violent video games argument?<p>The problem in Canada, we have insanely risen violent crime; tons of viral cases where people are out on bail less than 24 hours, were caught again committing more crime and being right back out on bail.<p>Literally multiple holy wars occurring in the streets.<p>South of us, the vast majority of the US states have now adopted constitutional carry. Conceal carry a handgun for your safety. Resulting in significantly less violent crime. Very easy choice to make as a politician. Canada did the opposite. There are hold outs in the usa trying to prevent guns being carried. They like Canada have similar violent crime problems.<p>CBC's take on this issue, 'true crime is somehow creating more crime for the justice system?'