CSI Effect Essay

Almost half the jurors expect to see some scientific evidence is astonishing. Breaking the survey down, by the type of crime, and the kind of evidence jurors wait to see is extraordinary. In murder cases over 70 percent of jurors expect some scientific evidence; whereas, in rape cases over 70 percent of the jurors expect some scientific evidence and DNA (Shelton, 2008). In burglary cases, over 70 percent of jurors wait for fingerprint evidence, cases involving firearms over 75 percent of jurors expect ballistics and over 65 percent of jurors wait to see fingerprint evidence (Shelton, 2008). Just looking at these percentage, any prosecutor or law enforcement officer would agree these numbers show the expectations of our citizens.

The evidence collected in an investigation helps make or break a case. Although sometimes the evidence is not physical it can still be powerful. Graat v. The Queen, [1982] 2 SCR 819, 1982 CanLII (SCC) is a case where the crown used opinion evidence in order to win their case. Opinion evidence is hard to make admissible in court because of the exceptions that arise from it. If the witness is an expert in the matter he/she does not need to have seen the event to give his/her opinion and may use the terms “I think or I believe” to be described as opinion evidence. (Bartley, 2016) The observations made, by the witnesses involved, influence their opinions. Their knowledge on the matter, although not experts also influenced their opinions.

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

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

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

Law enforcement and prosecutors have to work harder to prove their cases to the jury. The CSI effect has caused many people charged with murder to be acquitted. The jury wants irrefutable evidence such as DNA and finger prints analyst. If they do not have this, the jury will not convict. Law enforcement has to come up with creative ways to convince the jury that a person is guilty. Having eye witness is just not enough

In a positive scenario, in Virginia, a juror asked a judge can a cigarette butt be tested for DNA matches to the defendant in a murder trial. The defense lawyer failed to show DNA test results as evidence, therefore the case was thrown out. (The CSI Effect. (2010). The negative effect is, it has some jurors asking for an unreasonable demand for physical evidence at trial and just about in every case. Jurors expect the advance technology you see on crime television to be just how it is in real world. Jurors need to be a made aware that technology may not exist right away, and it does not correlate with admissibility. “The CSI effect is said to cause jurors to automatically attach reliability and revalence to high tech evidence to the point they are unwilling to the let go of their preconceived notions from whether the evidence is in fact reliable and admissible under the legal rules of jurisprudence.” (Managing the CSI Effect.

Forensic science is defined as the practice of utilizing scientific methodologies to clarify judicial inquiries. The field of forensic science contains a broad range of disciplines and has become a vital aspect of criminal investigations. Some forensic disciplines are laboratory-based; while others are based on an analyst’s interpretation of observable patterns (Kourtsounis, 2009). According to the Innocence project’s website; in greater than fifty percent of wrongful convictions, the use of invalidated or improper forensic techniques played a role in cases; which were later

    A review of false convictions that involved forensic science and can help identify critical lessons for forensic scientists as they perform testing, interpret results, render conclusions, and testify in court from the national institute of justice.

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.”

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.

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.

Forensic science and law are often seen as two opposing disciplines; forensic science is often presumed to be factual and law can be interpreted in multiple ways. Science and law reach conclusions in different ways which is an issue. Due to these differences, miscommunication is often the cause for miscarriages of justice. In order to address this problem, people working in the criminal justice system should have more knowledge of forensic science. There are many factors that contribute to the lack of understanding between forensic science and the people involved in the court process. Firstly, the adversarial model will be discussed in relation to how these procedures prevent effective communication between forensic evidence and lawyers. Secondly, the role that expert witnesses play in the presentation of scientific evidence and how jurors play a role in interpreting their evidence, will be considered. Thirdly it will be argued that lawyers and judges lack adequate knowledge of forensic science that is needed to conduct accurate trials. Lastly, possible solutions to improve the communication between forensic science and the actors involved in the criminal justice system. Juries, lawyers and judges should be more educated in understanding forensic science.

Forensic science plays a role in most criminal cases. In addition, it has become part of mainstream American culture due to television and programs that are based on solving crimes. The connection between science and law has been full of ups and downs. In the courtroom, lawyers may find themselves examining scientific notions that they do not have a full understanding of. Likewise, judges, who are also unexperienced with scientific concepts, are forced to make the decision of whether evidence is relevant and reliable. There is great concern surrounding the quality of our forensic science system. However, the courts continue to rely on forensic evidence without having a full understanding on the limitations of certain forensic science disciplines. There are rules that govern the admissibility of forensic science in court. In the case, Bloodsworth v. State of Maryland, these rules were not followed and the forensic evidence presented should not have been admissible in court. Every attempt should be made to properly study techniques and have its accuracy verified before being used to describe or analyze evidence in court.