CSI Effect

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.”

Many jurors may be more decisive based on actual development in forensic technology; it is likely under the CSI affect to acquit a guilty defendant. The weakness of CSI effect does have a negative effect on the criminal justice system. There a lot of misconceptions associate with crime shows. For instance, in shows such as Law & Order and Crime Scene Investigation, DNA test results only seem to take an hour or a few hours when in reality, it can take days or weeks to get the results back, depending on which DNA testing facility is used.

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)

Their decisions in the conviction or acquittal process are also affected. Research has shown the CSI Effect has a possible pro-defense bias, in that jurors are less likely to convict without the presence of some sort of forensic evidence. Some studies show actors in the criminal justice system are changing their tactics, as if this effect has a significant influence, causing them to request unnecessary crime lab tests and expert testimonies (Alldredge, 2015).

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

This paper (essay) is about the history and development of Forensic Science throughout the years, decades and centuries. Forensic Science is a very important tool that has been upgrading and developing in many ways as time has passed by. The many roles of the forensic science expert as is they relate to the forensic science disciplines. And the capabilities of forensic science.

Every time an innocent person is exonerated based on DNA testing, law enforcement agencies look at what caused the wrongful convictions. There are many issues that contribute to putting guiltless lives behind bars including: eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, imperfect forensic science, and more (Gould and Leo 18). When a witness is taken into a police station to identify a suspect, it is easy for their memories to be blurred and their judgment influenced. This can lead the witness to identify a suspect who is actually innocent. Flawed forensic science practice also contributes to wrongful imprisonments. In the past, analysts have been inaccurate due to carelessness, testified in court presenting evidence that was not based

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

With an innumerable amount of scientific television shows being broadcast each day on various networks it is important to analyze the quality of the science presented in each show. The ability to critically examine all scientific plots is impossible considering the sheer number of active shows but the sentiment is definitely profound; television shows engage millions of viewers each day with their fast paced plots but often glaze over legitimate scientific processes for the sake of keeping viewers interested, or simply misrepresent information to make their storyline more fluid. Crime shows, arguably one of the more popular genres of shows, encompass both riveting plot devices as well as mystery and complexity through the use of science. Crime Scene Investigation (CSI), Criminal Minds, NCIS, and Law and Order all perfectly illustrate this formula--each of these shows allows viewers to go on criminal investigations with the main characters and take glimpses of the behind-the-scenes work that actually help to convict criminals. Processes like DNA and fingerprint recognition, clothing fiber identification, and mortuary science pique the interests of many viewers (while also seeming to ground the show itself in reality). Unfortunately, some shows have stretched the truth of scientific processes by collecting evidence incorrectly or even getting database matches far too fast (in addition to other mistakes). In order to catch these mistakes first hand, I opted to watch Law and

    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.

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

Forensic science is a broad term that refers to the use of science or technology in a court room environment. Forensic science plays an important role in modern popular culture; the police procedural is highly dependent upon cutting-edge forensic science. Moreover, many people are aware of the impact of DNA testing on the modern criminal justice landscape. However, forensic science actually predates many modern scientific advances; almost as long as there have been controversies, there has been some type of forensic science.