CSI Effect

With producing reality shows comes producing inaccuracies in portrayals in order to reach as many viewers and gain as high ratings as possible every week with each new episode. Every day life is boring, yet people tend to be attracted to the relatable shows that portray real life in eccentric ways – ways that they believe could be imitated by the average person. In many cases, these shows could remain harmless, as it is entertainment. No matter how crude or erroneous, it is just television. However, what happens when these sources of amusement actually start being damaging? Research has shown that crime shows like the ever popular CSI: Crime Scene Investigation have started becoming significantly detrimental to criminal

The CSI Effect is a phenomenon reported by prosecutors who claim that television shows based on scientific crime solving have made actual jurors reluctant to vote to convict when forensic evidence is neither necessary nor available (Nolo, 2011). The criminalistics and criminology aspects are especially exaggerated; most evidence that is shown is not as clear in real life. Fingerprints of victims are not as easily marked or proven. DNA evidence which requires certain equipment/technology in the lab, is usually too expensive, and isn’t even something you would see in most crime labs. Crimes are also not as traceable as they seem on TV. Many crime scenes take up to week’s sometimes even months to get all of the evidence and process it. The CSI Effect is influencing the public because the more popular those crime shows get the number of student majors in forensics science has increased rapidly. They are interested in the fast pace quick higher level learning skills that they portray in the TV only to learn that it is nothing like how it is on TV. The CSI Effect is also affecting the real world of criminal justice because it creates unreasonable expectations in the minds of jurors (Hoffmeister, 2011). They want and expect scientific evidence linking the defendant to the crime

In the past, the jury learned from the forensic scientists’ testimony; but now, they’re learning from television and a lot of reality shows. Consequently, what they’re learning is not necessarily what is actually done (Honeycutt). However, those jurors who watch criminal investigation television shows do believe that what they’re seeing on TV is what does go on in real life and they expect to see it in court. This is because, according to Shelton, “the more frequently jurors watched a given program, the more accurate they perceived it to be.”

Holmgren and Fordham looked into the CSI effect on jurors in Canada and Australia to see if they have unrealistic expectations when it comes to forensic evidence. They used college students who were eligible for jury duty in Canada and in Australia the used people who had already been selected for jury duty. To obtain the results they used surveys for both groups to measure their view habits and verdicts, along with interviews for the Australian participant. The results showed that while some are influenced by their viewing habits in terms of forensic evidence it didn’t have the results that they were expecting

In March 2005, CBS News Correspondent, Brian Dakss (2005), wrote an article which referenced the “CSI effect” after he reported, “It seems the popular CBS TV show on crime scene investigators is having an effect on real-life jurors. They want a clear trail of evidence, or they won 't vote guilty." The Early Show, national correspondent Hattie Kauffman stated, “More than 60 million people watch the CSI shows every week, which means a lot of potential jurors now have high expectations of forensic evidence. The CSI Effect is felt in courtrooms from coast to coast” (Dakss, 2005)

The CSI Effect is the residue of television sitcom perform by a professional actor who is re-enacting the method of a crime when an investigator, forensic tech and other attempting to tackle a crime by using cutting edge technologies that do not exist. Notwithstanding, the issue with the CSI Effect is that it is fiction. It is impossible to locate the criminal, have a court day and be sentenced to jail by a judge in one day. Presently, the general society is required for the law authorization to give them the same outcome as the CSI impact to solve crime in their community. Many citizens believe that the police department has all those high tech gadgets that are displayed on the popular TV sitcom CSI, yet in actuality, that is not the case

Judge Shelton explains that even though his study shows no data that the higher expectation for evidence equates to higher acquittals, he claims that law enforcement personnel still believe that the CSI Effect on jury outcomes exists and that this belief affects their behavior. In fact, during a report to Congress, the National Academy of Sciences referenced a study conducted by Saks and stated that the law enforcement’s belief of the CSI Effect affects how prosecutors present evidence in trial. Because of the crime shows, prosecutors try to make their presentation interesting and appealing believing that the way the evidence is presented with affect how the jurors see the evidence’s credibility. Also according to Judge Shelton, because of this assumption, prosecutors have been known to question witness on whether or not they watch shows like CSI as well as tell the jury that forensic evidence is not part of the state’s burden of proof. In the end, Judge Shelton offers an explanation for jurors’ expectations for forensic evidence.

There has been a lot of research intending to fully discover the extent of the CSI effect television that has found its impact to be negative. Of the multitudes of negative impacts of the CSI effects, among the most prevalent are the unrealistic expectations that viewers have of DNA and other types of forensic evidence in the courtroom. In Ley, Jankowski, and Brewer’s study, they analyzed a large sample of CSI episodes for their content relating to forensic science. The study found that that in 94% of all episodes in the sample the detectives used DNA evidence to solve cases. Also, in 88% of all cases shown, the

Today’s television shows have a strong effect on society. Crime scenes are staged, to be more appealing for television viewers. In “The CSI Effect” (USA Today, August 2004) Richard Willing suggest CSI shows inaccurate portals of scientific evidence. He believes this sends the wrong message to viewers making them believe that forensic scientist can’t make mistakes. That evidence, can’t be contaminated I have seen firsthand how invested people are into crime shows. After serving on jury duty the juniors based there decisions solely on the evidence and didn’t care about the testimony of the defendant. I agree with him that people are heavily influenced by crime analysis shows, However, reality shows like Intervention help change the lives of, addicts, family members, and viewers.

The CSI Effect is said to have poisoned the minds of jurors and their expectations of presenting evidence by the forensic science T.V. shows like CSI (Crime Scene Investigators) influence their perceptions of jurors being able to provide forensic evidence. “Using the fact that Hollywood could determine the outcome of case by letting the guilty go free, but in a society where the criminal justice system has convicted many people who was innocent.” (McRobert’s, Mills, & Possley, 2005, P. 1). Juror’s have demanded the use of forensic science for forensic evidence in criminal trials which means that prosecutors will have to provide more of the proof of juror’s to get a conviction. CSI Effect believe that crimes show such as CSI have little to no affect on juror’s actions to make a

The popular T.V. show CSI and its two spin offs, CSI:NY and CSI: Miami, portray the police as a moral authority by using a form of forensic realism. The show is based off of science, and many of the people who watch it do not have a science background. CSI is a police drama, and appears to be very successful in a time when law enforcement and science are questioned greatly. Science is greatly lacking, and it’s very hard to rely on when groups like the “FDA and the National Academy of Sciences disagree on the medical benefits of marijuana” (citation).

Over the last decade, the area of criminal investigation has dealt with the “CSI effect.” The CSI effect is defined as the fabrication of the process in which criminal investigations are carried out in crime scene investigator television programs. The effect is described as not understanding the purpose, characteristics, unrealistic expectations, and the processes of an investigator. Popular programs like the CSI series have altered the public’s perception of the criminal investigative process and the role of the crime scene investigation. Countless judges, attorneys, and journalists have claimed that watching criminal investigative programs have caused jurors to set free guilty defendants when no scientific evidence has been obtained.

The episode showed many realistic and unrealistic things that were astonishing. . Jeffrey Toobin, a CNN wrote an op-ed in the New Yorker explaining the impact of television and the court room. Toobin points out that CSI the show had glamourized the investigative process and the science on how the results were actually given. (Toobin, 2007) The realistic things that were noticed were how they gathered the bodies and body parts. They were tagged with identification and taken to an area to be examined further. They were able to get the killers finger prints while he was in the hospital because he was the only survivor of the crash. The photographer took photographs of the crimes scene and how the investigators conducted their jobs. They interviewed the next of kin immediately after determining the identity of the passengers.

Nearly anyone you ask would be familiar with the television show CSI. The crime lab is colorful and high-tech with all of the fun toys and machines that analysts use to test the ever abundant amount of forensic evidence from every crime scene. It makes for an exciting drama that you cannot help but get immersed in—it also gives us a false illusion, however, creating what has been dubbed as the “CSI effect” (Baskin, 2011). This effect describes the idea that crime shows such as CSI generate unreal expectations, making viewers believe that forensic evidence should be existent in all criminal trials, therefore affecting their overall perspective on a case (Baskin, 2011). But in reality, forensic labs are not that glamorous. In fact, the

Forensic Science has contributed to our world a great deal. People often misunderstand Forensic Science and believe it is much more capable than it really is. As a matter of fact what you see on T.V. is around 80% false or over exaggerated in some way. To Start of, Criminal Investigation is the largest and most known form of Forensic Science. Some of the more known areas include; Fingerprinting, Ballistics, DNA Identification, Fiber Samples, Computer Animation, Documentation analysis, etc. To get this out of the way in the beginning, what you saw on last night’s law and order is far from the truth. Things they do in a matter of hours take months at a time, and most of the time aren’t even plausible concepts.