Yes

by Ray Burke

Created on: May 27, 2009

Have TV police affected the way police and criminals behave?

The proliferation of cops and robbers shows, their depiction of the ingenious ways to commit and solve crimes, and the eccentricities of law makers and law breakers must in some way impinge upon the real world. But which drives which? Does fact derive from fiction or does fiction reflect fact? It is probably a bit of both, with real life providing the background/template for fictional action, but how much can a TV show influence what happens in real crime fighting?

Tactics:

While police tactics have evolved over the years to meet criminal trends and vice versa, how many have been affected by TV shows? Are there any statistics that reveal TV copy-cat crimes? Does a policeman say he saw something on TV and used it to solve a crime? Likewise, many TV shows sail close to the wind when writing episodes that match real-life cases, showing police tactics, specialist equipment, and inventive criminal methods and weapons. When fictional crime 'inspires' reality, do both the police and criminals take note of particular situations, even though the fictionalised account will be somewhat over the top? One example is that ubiquitous device that can cut perfect circles in glass, after which the criminal then removes the glass. That device is fiction; glass does not cut like that. Another is the procurement, use, and alterations of high-powered weapons. Given their dominance and presumed effectiveness in TV shows, criminals are more than likely to imitate this, giving the police more problems. While U.S. police are routinely armed, they are not in the U.K. and debates as to whether British police should be armed occurs after each gun crime. This is one reason why some people in the U.K. call for violent (U.S.) shows to be screened later, censored, or rejected. But British police have responded and can now be armed with tasers. Whether knife, gun, and gang crime has been affected by violent police TV shows, it has had a dramatic effect on British police tactics.

Behaviour and habits:

With the increase of profiling, specialist units, and operational tactics shows on the TV, the criminal has an opportunity to study their methods and techniques. Not that it always works. The amount of ways to murder, harm, rob, kidnap, commit fraud, etc is endless, but in the end the criminal usually gets caught. The "sons of Columbo": 'Monk', the 'Mentalist', and 'Psych' are especially adept at reading people and solving crimes. The show 'Criminal Minds' takes us into the said mind of a criminal dissecting their motivations. Can someone watching and learning from these shows change their behaviour and habits in order to commit a crime scot-free or even impersonate law officials? Is there such a thing as a perfect crime these days? Can lie-detector tests be deceived? Are guilty people as transparent as made out on TV? Profilers have to stay one step ahead of the master manipulators. There are countless TV shows with psychologists revealing tell-tale behavioural signs and real life 'mentalist' Derren Brown performing his own brand of cold-reading tricks and other feats of psychological 'magic'. Shows like the fictional 'Hustle' and scam-busting 'The Real Hustle' also reveal how behavioural techniques can be used as a tool toward crime. The human is the sum of inherited and learned attributes, knowing right from wrong, and how to use those experiences. If such psychological issues on TV shows are affecting viewers' habits and morality then the police have to step up their efforts to combat this, which then gets shown on TV, which affects people, etc. It's a never-ending battle to manipulate, anticipate, and control criminal actions and minds, but for how much longer can it continue?

Forensics and technology:

Though the forensics on the 'CSI' franchise shows are somewhat flashy and speedy, does the criminal have an advantage in knowing what they can do to escape detection, what is admissible in court, and how to corrupt evidence? Are there statistics on unsolved files for lack of forensic evidence, possibly due to smart criminals covering their tracks, learned from TV shows? When TV's 'Columbo', Peter Falk, read about a criminal being caught because of the imprint of his tooth on a piece of cheese, he used that in a memorable episode. People in courts expect flashy lawyers, conclusive forensics, and stereotypical villains in the dock. What the people see on TV cannot be replicated in real life, so does trust of the system wane or are people aware of these discrepancies when on jury duty? CCTV and other surveillance devices; bugs, wires, and tracking gadgets; computers and mobile phones, etc, are all part of modern policing. So are counter-surveillance methods and techniques, seen in all good spy films. How many criminals are still free and undetected, because they carefully control their communication networks and public affiliations? How many hackers, crackers, and tech-savvy surfers contravene guarded firewalls spreading viruses or stealing information? Technology (so far) is only as smart as the people that built them and forensics only as infallible as the person investigating. Some police dramas make these two seem like the end all and be all, but they are not. They are just tools, made and used by humans, and as such can be disrupted and contaminated by people.

Media:

The longer a criminal stays free, the more publicity they get and like a police show, they start earning a name for themselves: 'The Strangler', 'The Beltway Sniper', 'The Moors Murderer', etc. Such elevation from anonymity must be a goal of criminals, to be a name, rather than a generic serial killer, gang leader, or thief. Almost all TV shows have some sort of nemesis with a colourful nom-de-plume, usually concocted by some media wag out to make a name for themselves. Sometimes, the real media picks up on things before the police, or at least publicises it more. But what can the police do? Should the media be used or blacked-out in order to protect case details and victims/witnesses? Of course, all police forces would refuse/deny using TV police shows to pick up tips, as they should do, but the more that TV police shows become more realistic they gain police cooperation and consultants. While the police units won't have special departments with officers that comb through TV police archives for similar crimes, does it get mentioned that such and such a show had a case similar that might be worth looking into? Shouldn't everything be done to solve the crime, including sourcing solutions from the TV cops? But how far is too far?

Mediums and psychics:

Many shows now feature psychics, with the fictional Allison DuBois (played by Patricia Arquette) from 'Medium' taking on the mantle of the real psychic Allison DuBois, who prefers to call herself a medium or profiler. Apart from this show, most other TV cop shows depict psychics as frauds or incredibly lucky, but psychics are still used and advertise for business. The apparent success of the real Allison DuBois spawned a show about her. And while it may be reality that drove that, the publicity from it gives the real Allison DuBois and other psychics more credibility and added work. Such work could damage a police unit's reputation, thus lower its estimation in the eyes of the public.

The public and law:

Lastly, what about the general public? Crime is a media event, with some unlawful acts caught on mobile phone cameras or called into a televised crime show. Watching police dramas or documentaries with re-creations of crimes could help the public to identify a crime in progress, to avoid a dangerous criminal/situation, to report crimes, to be generally vigilant, or even have a criminal caught. Are people's views and expectations of law enforcement changing? Sneaky lawyers and criminals protesting their human rights also creeps between reality and TV. People have little faith in the law, when reading or viewing such stories, thus police dramas featuring vigilantes and a serial-killing forensics officer in 'Dexter' have the public rooting for them. The public expects the police to do better in investigating and solving crimes. The TV police do it time after time in nice, neat packages. If only real life was that simple. How can real police compete against perceptions from TV cops? Well, all they can do is to keep their heads held high, get on with the job, and rely on us, the public, and their respective governments to give them the tools and respect needed for the job. While watching police dramas won't necessarily be a part of their academy training, the police will affect how TV portrays them to the public.

Police and crime shows may be helping crime pay for some, but the police are probably still one step ahead. There's too much violence on the streets for the police to be watching TV for ways to solving/monitoring it. But sometimes truth is stranger than fiction and somewhere out there are the next generation of law enforcers and criminals being inspired by what they see on TV. It's left to the future to see how those TV police shows and the real police respond.

Learn more about this author, Ray Burke.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.