CSI Effect In Criminal Investigations

In 2006, over 100 million people in the United States tuned in to watch either CSI or any if the other forensic and criminal investigation related television show each week (CJSG). Since then, the number of viewers has increased rapidly, as well as the amount of television shows with the same type of theme. As a result of the increase of these television programs, researchers are discovering a new phenomenon called the ‘CSI Effect’ that seems to be fueling an interest in forensic science and criminal investigations nationwide. This effect is actually the ability of criminal justice themed television shows to influence and increase victims’, jurors’ and criminals’ ideas about forensics, DNA testing and methods, and criminal investigations

The popular television show, CSI: Crime Scene Investigations has been on the air for 12 years, and it has brought forth the behind-the-scenes actions of criminal investigations, even if its portrayals are not always scientifically accurate. This has caused an interest in the forensic sciences that has led most people to a skewed view of how a criminal investigation actually works. The reality of a criminal investigation is that it is generally more tedious and difficult than the theory of criminal investigation would have you believe. By examining the forensic and investigative procedures of the case of Pamela Foddrill, it is apparent that the theory of criminal investigation was not representative of the procedures concerning examination

The CSI effect has a very major influence on today’s crime scene. The CSI effect is no myth. It gives the idea of considerable forensic evidence may be very prevalent to a crime scene. Television crime shows may give a misleading imitation that all evidence is relevant. Most evidence may be thrown out because it does not have any significance.

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.

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

Less frequently, individuals will allude to the "CSI Effect" to allude to the inverse, nonetheless. Defense attorneys, for instance, now and again contend that attendants impacted by "CSI" have a tendency to accept that any scientific confirmation gathered will be implicating. This is likewise hazardous, commentators say, in light of the fact that individuals don't normally think about the likelihood of error or even fraud [source: Cole. Scientific researchers have been known to fudge results about request to get a conviction, in the event that they accept that is the thing that the police desire. Take, for instance, Joyce Gilchrist, a police scientific expert who

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 was first described in the media as a phenomenon resulting from viewing forensic

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

The CSI Effect is becoming to take it’s place in courtrooms and the prosecutors aren 't liking it. Prosecutors are feeling there is no hope for getting a conviction when it’s come to the CSI Effect because they believe that it has control over the juror’s applying justice to criminal. The CSI Effect is being criticized for not allowing prosecutors a fair chance at a conviction in a jury trial for the belief that Jurors are influenced by what they see on T.V shows and how they believe that the use of forensic science should be used more to prove a person guilty of a crime. The CSI Effect is to be determined if whether or not it can affect the way a case is determined in the eyes of the jury.

Not all primetime crime shows are created equal; some bend forensic realities at different degrees than others depending on sub-genre. According to Hon

In this video Correspondent LOWELL BERGMAN questions the scientific validity of forensic science. He also expresses that it is not as simple as it appears on television shows. Detective. Joanna Grivetti who is a crime scene investigator in Richmond, California explains that the real life CSI is getting dirty, smelling things you don’t want to smell, seeing things you don’t want to see and dealing with blood in order to collect evidence that may seem small at the time, but will ultimately (possibly) be a big deal in solving the case.

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

CSI will be called to court to give evidence and expertise to the judge, jury and barristers depending on how serious the case is. When appearing in court you must dress smartly, for example, A suit or a sensible dress, when a beeing called upon you will be swearing an oath and hold a bible while doing so, the must state the name and relevant qualification and occupation and their employer, for

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.