Essay On 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.”

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 can be defined as the relationship between law and science; it answers the questions of how, why and who committed the crime, with the input of multiple actors. However, there are currently problems with

In the movie 12 Angry Men, the jurors are set in a hot jury room while they are trying to determine the verdict of a young man who is accused of committing a murder. The jurors all explain why they think the accused is guilty or not guilty. Throughout the movie they are debating back and forth and the reader begins to realize that even though the jurors should try to not let bias cloud their judgement, the majority of the jurors are blinded by bias. The viewer can also see that the jurors have their own distinguishable personalities. Their personalities intertwine with each other to demonstrate how the jury system is flawed, but that is what makes it work.

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.

It’s important that all evidence is identified so that forensic scientist can examine it and take

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.

When thinking of a jury, there is a belief that everyone is fair when it comes to making the decision of whether the person being accused of the crime is guilty or not guilty because of the person’s race. What if this belief is not necessarily correct? There have been many instances in whether race has been a factor when the jury makes a decision. According to Baskin, Goldstein, and Sommers (2014), there has been enough evidence to show that racial biases influences the decisions of a jury. In this paper, the articles will show how jury decision-making is influenced by the offender’s race.

During jury selection, potential jurors are interviewed then chosen or eliminated from the jury. The initial selection of potential jurors is completely random; citizens get “jury Duty” notices on a random basis. The screening of the jury selection is conducted by both the prosecution and the defense, and is overviewed by the judge on the case. During the interview, citizens are asked a number of strategic questions to ensure that they are not in any way bias for or against the defendant or case. The questions also eliminate those who have any connection to the case, in any way. It is during this interview that the lawyers on the case can voice their concerns regarding biased jurors.

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

asked the jurors to discuss this for just an hour; won’t “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”

[3] It is very important for the actor of the court who is questioning the potential jurors to make the panel feel comfortable and keep in mind that some of them might not be comfortable answering some questions in front of others. [3] Therefore, the questions should be open ended in order to try to find out who might be a good juror and who will not and who is trying to hide something. [3] It is also recommend to have a paralegal who can assist with taking notes during the questioning so that the actor of the court making the questions can only focus on that tasks and it can also help the jurors feel more comfortable as well. [3] The notes taken during questioning should include names and descriptions of each potential juror as well as how they answered the questions, what were they doing during questioning, their body position, and were they talking with other jurors among other descriptions. [3] This will help the attorneys or the judge later when they decide which juror will be part of the trial and which will not.

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

Some Jurors will reach a quick verdict or not properly think over the evidence just to get it over and done with so they can go home.

In order to have a proper trial, judges will have to bear in mind that