Criminal Court Cases

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

One major difference I noticed about CSI on T.V. compared to real life is the way that things always seem to be fast and easy when in reality it takes a long time and can be complicated. For instance in many shows such CSI Miami, Bones, etc. when they test blood samples, DNA, fingerprints or other things it seems to only take minutes, when in reality it can take weeks or months to get the actual results. Another thing would be the amount of education and training needed. You must be able to perform many things such as drug analysis, trace evidence and much more. Forensics isn't as easy as just taking pictures and bagging evidence. It requires years of education and months of training which is rarely mentioned in the shows. Some T.V. shows rarely

Forensic evidence plays a huge role in most criminal cases. After the Daubert trial, forensic scientific evidence was reevaluated in criminal and civil cases. Scientific and forensic types of evidence can be extremely helpful in proving the case. It can help identify the suspect in a criminal case. That will help put a criminal in prison. There are many different types of forensic evidence that can be considered as scientific evidence. The different types include DNA matching, fingerprint identification, and hair evidence. The methods used to show these types of evidence are usually beyond the scope of knowledge that judges and juries know. Those types of forensic evidence are usually introduced as scientific evidence. Scientific evidence can sometimes be omitted from a courtroom or

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

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

Furthermore, people may ask what caused the CSI Effect? A few things all together caused this effect to occur. First and foremost, criminal television shows such as, Bones, Law & Order, Criminal Minds, NCSI, CSI, CSI: Miami, Cold Case, How to Get Away with Murder, and much more, caused the Effect. Kimberlianne Podlas explains the Effect by

Lawson (2009) explains the CSI Effect as the way criminal investigation shows influence the decisions made by jurors in court. Since these shows portray an unrealistic vision of real-life scenarios, jurors have unrealistic thoughts about the information presented in front of them. For example, television shows often suggest that DNA evidence is required for conviction and is easily and efficiently acquirable (Mallicoat, 2016). However, a rightful conviction can be reached without any DNA evidence and DNA testing is, in fact, a lengthy process. This misleading portrayal can possibly cause some jurors to believe that the evidence presented in front of them is not strong enough, should it not contain any DNA support, distorting their decision making process.

forensic fiction. Shows like C.S.I. wouldn't be quite as interesting to the viewer if it

Phillip, I was one of those individuals believing in the “CSI Effect”. Although I am of age I began to question what is the delay in regard to evidence being used in a timely manner. In fact, I strongly believe the evidence is not as important is because of the type of crime and prisons. Hypothetically, if the technology was made available, and analyzed within two weeks, the criminal justice system will not be harassed by the public. It also beneficial that the public is aware, that the CSI Effect seen on television does not yield faster results. Once the public is aware of the real-life process.

Although both crime investigation shows enthrall audiences with a mystery to be solved, CSI: Miami captivates the current generation of viewers with its introduction of emerging technology,

I was already aware that television shows like CSI are not accurate when explaining crime scene investigator's job. Television shows, movies, books, etc constantly overly emphasize specific situations in order for the people to be entertained. If entertainment went the way it is was in real-life, than we’d all be bored out of our minds. For instance, criminal investigators spend a lot of time on paper work. I doubt we would want to watch that on television. I don’t want you to think that I believe a criminal investigators job is boring because it’s not all the time and investigators will have plenty of stories to share throughout their career. I don’t watch the show CSI that frequently, but it may display some accuracy from time to time, but I would not take it seriously.

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).

The “CSI Effect” refers to the relationship forensic television shows has on a juror’s verdict decision. Throughout the literature on the “CSI Effect”, there is a discrepancy on whether or not it actually exists. This effect causes jurors to have unrealistic high expectations of forensic science during a trial and affect jurors’ willingness to convict without some piece of evidence.