Two cases of missing children in Portugal (Joana and Maddie) have recently highlighted the dilemmas and contingencies associated with the technology of “genetic fingerprinting” for forensic purposes in the context of criminal investigations. The purpose of this article is to analyze the popular press’s discourses and representations around forensic genetics in the context of those two highly mediatized criminal investigation cases. The symbolical construction and representation of forensic genetics by the media presents a form of public exposure to beliefs on forensic genetics’ characteristics and potential. These are blended with popular cultural contexts that are constructed with reference to images of a super-science which may carry consequences in the public understanding of forensic science. The media coverage of both cases and their actual disclosure resembles the patterns of a CSI effect, insofar as real science’s capabilities and limitations are placed against fictionalized representations of forensic science.
AltheideD. (1996) Qualitative Media Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
2.
BroedersA. P. A. (2006) “Of Earprints, Fingerprints, Scent Dogs, Cot Deaths and Cognitive Contamination: A Brief Look at the Present State of Play in the Forensic Arena,” Forensic Science International159: 148–57.
3.
CavenderG.DeutschS. (2007) “CSI and Moral Authority: The Police and Science,” Crime, Media, Culture3(1): 67–81.
4.
ColeS. (2001) Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
ColeS.Dioso-VillaR. (2007) “CSI and its Effects: Media, Juries, and the Burden of Proof,” New England Law Review41: 435–70.
6.
ConradP. (1999) “Uses of Expertise: Sources, Quotes, and Voice in the Reporting of Genetics in the News,” Public Understanding of Science8: 285–302.
7.
CooperS. (2004) “Truth and Justice, Inquiry and Advocacy, Science and Law,” Ratio Juris17(1): 15–26.
8.
CostaS. (2003) A Justiça em Laboratório. A Identificação por Perfis de ADN: Entre a Harmonização Transnacional e a Apropriação Local. Coimbra: Almedina.
9.
DrorI. E.CharltonD. (2006) “Why Experts Make Errors,” Journal of Forensic Identification56: 600–16.
10.
EdmondG. (1998) “Down by Science: Context and Commitment in the Lay Response to Incriminating Scientific Evidence During a Murder Trial,” Public Understanding of Science7: 83–111.
11.
EricsonR. V. (1991) “Mass Media, Crime, Law and Justice: An Institutional Approach,” British Journal of Criminology31: 219–49.
12.
EricsonR. V. (1998) “How Journalists Visualize Fact,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science560: 83–95.
13.
EricsonR. V.BaranekP.ChanJ. (1991) Representing Order: Crime, Law and Justice in the News Media. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
14.
FarrR. M. (1993) “Common Sense, Science and Social Representations,” Public Understanding of Science2: 189–204.
15.
GillP. (2001) “Application of Low Copy Number DNA Profiling,” Croatian Medical Journal42: 229–32.
16.
GuibentifP.GorjãoV.ChetaR. (2002) Comunicação Social e Representações do Crime. Lisboa: Centro de Estudos Judiciários, Gabinete de Estudos Jurídico-Sociais.
17.
HansV. P.DeeJ. L. (1991) “Media Coverage of Law: Its Impact on Juries and the Public,” American Behavioral Scientist35: 136–49.
18.
HansenA. (1994) “Journalistic Practices and Science Reporting in the British Press,” Public Understanding of Science3: 111–34.
19.
HollimanR. (2004) “Media Coverage of Cloning: A Study of Media Content, Production and Reception,” Public Understanding of Science13: 107–30.
20.
HughesT.MagersM. (2007) “The Perceived Impact of Crime Scene Investigation Shows on the Administration of Justice,” Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture14(3): 259–76.
21.
JasanoffS. (1997) Science at the Bar: Law, Science and Technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
JasanoffS. (2006) “Just Evidence: The Limits of Science in the Legal Process,” The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics34: 328–41.
23.
JewkesY. (2004) Media and Crime. London: SAGE Publications.
24.
KuaE.RederM.GrosselM. (2004) “Science in the News: A Study of Reporting Genomics,” Public Understanding of Science13: 309–22.
25.
LynchM.JasanoffS. (1998) “Contested Identities: Science, Law and Forensic Practice,” Social Studies of Science28(5–6): 675–86.
26.
MachadoH. (2008) “Biologising Paternity, Moralising Maternity: The Construction of Parenthood in the Determination of Paternity through the Courts in Portugal,” Feminist Legal Studies16(2): 215–36.
27.
MargotP. (1998) “The Role of the Forensic Scientist in an Inquisitorial System of Justice,” Science Justice38(2): 71–3.
28.
MendesH. (2003) “Visibilidade da Ciência nos Mass Media: A Tematização da Ciência nos Jornais Público, Correio da Manhã e Expresso (1990 e 1997),” in GonçalvesM. E. (ed.) Os Portugueses e a Ciência, pp. 32–78Lisboa: Dom Quixote.
29.
MorleyD. (1983) “Cultural Transformations: The Politics of Resistance,” in DavisH.WaltonP. (eds) Language, Image, Media, pp. 104–17. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
30.
MurphyE. (2007) “The New Forensics: Criminal Justice, False Certainty, and the Second Generation of Scientific Evidence,” California Law Review95: 721–97.
31.
NelkinD. (1994) “Promotional Metaphors and their Popular Appeal,” Public Understanding of Science3: 25–31.
OddieC. (1991) Science and the Administration of Justice: Report of a Committee Set Up by JUSTICE and the Council for Science and Society. London: JUSTICE (British Section of the International Commission of Jurists).
35.
PeeloM. (2006) “Framing Homicide Narratives in Newspapers: Mediated Witness and the Construction of Virtual Victimhood,” Crime, Media, Culture2(2): 159–75.
36.
PetersonJ.LeggettA. S. (2007) “The Evolution of Forensic Science: Progress Amid the Pitfalls,” Stetson Law Review36: 621–60.
37.
PodlasK. (2006) “‘The CSI Effect’: Exposing the Media Myth,” Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal16: 429–65.
38.
RobertsonB.VignauxG. (1995) Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom. Chichester: John Willey & Sons.
39.
SaccoV. F. (1995) “Media Constructions of Crime,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science539: 141–54.
40.
SaksM.KoehlerJ. J. (2005) “The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science,” Science309: 892–5.
41.
SantosB. S. (2000) A Crítica da Razão Indolente: Contra o Desperdício da Experiência. Porto: Afrontamento.
42.
SchweitzerN. J.SaksM. (2007) “The CSI Effect: Popular Fiction about Forensic Science Affects the Public’s Expectations about Real Forensic Science,” Jurimetrics47: 357–64.
43.
SheltonD.KimY.BarakG. (2006) “A Study of Juror Expectations and Demands Concerning Scientific Evidence: Does the ‘CSI Effect’ Exist?,” Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law9(2): 331–68.
44.
SparksC. (1992) “The Popular Press and Political Democracy,” in ScannelP.SchlesingerP.SparksC. (ed.) Culture and Power: Media, Culture & Society Reader, pp. 278–92. London: Sage Publications.
45.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
46.
SuretteR. (1998) Media, Crime, and Criminal Justice: Images and Realities. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
47.
TylerT. R. (2006) “Viewing CSI and the Threshold of Guilt: Managing Truth and Justice in Reality and Fiction,” Yale Law Journal115: 1050–85.
48.
YearleyS. (1994) “Understanding Science from the Perspective of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: An Overview,” Public Understanding of Science3: 245–58.
49.
ZelizerB. (1993) “Journalists as Interpretive Community,” Critical Studies in Mass Communication10(1): 219–37.
50.
ZimmermanC.BisanzG. L.BisanzJ.KleinJ. S.KleinP. (2001) “Science at the Supermarket: A Comparison of What Appears in the Popular Press, Experts’ Advice to Readers, and What Students Want to Know,” Public Understanding of Science10: 37–58.
