The thing is, there have always been bizarre crimes. There's actually *less* violence against children and less stranger-on-stranger violence in the US now than there was 100 years ago; the difference is that we hear about it now. Parents killing their own children, or abusing them horribly, used to be actually fairly common, because no one had ever heard of it so they didn't know they could/should step in and stop it when they saw a neighbor or family member looking like they were about to go around the bend. Cases like that sicko in Cleveland used to happen *all the time* but nobody talked about it.
There have actually been some studies about whether shows like CSI teach criminals how to get away with things, and it turns out they don't. There's actually a tiny effect to the opposite-- people who might have committed non-violent crimes like fraud sometimes don't because they've seen so many people get caught on TV!
There is one known problem with the CSI type shows, though, and that's their effect on juries. People see these shows where the brilliant lab techs get DNA off of the inside of a glove or something and nail the perp with 100% certainty in a half-hour's work, and then if they get called to jury duty they expect to have that kind of evidence for a case involving the theft of a 15-year-old car. They don't realize that the lab's budget and time are the biggest fantasy aspect of the whole show, and that in real life there's probably no DNA on the glove, and if there were, it would cost too much to find and test it for any crime less than murder.
| current weight: 132.0