Gruesome Photos: A Case Study

The real problem is that 95% of felony cases only use eyewitness evidence. (1) These are the more serious cases as well; they are the ones where people can be sent to death row. Should someone be sentences to death on only eyewitness evidence? As said before, eyewitnesses can be used for key events, but they do not remember accurate details. Relying only on eyewitness evidence can cause serious problems. In 1991, 247 murder cases were thrown out because of false or tainted witness statements. Some of the accused murders were even behind bars at the time of the murders. (1) Furthermore, 75% of DNA evidence has been shown in cases where the witnesses were wrong. (5) This goes to show how scientific evidence is much more accurate than witnesses. However, witness evidence can be critical in sexual assault cases for children. Children do not understand sexual assault, so they usually give truthful and clear evidence. Adults tend to fill in the evidence with their own “fuzzy logic”. (1) There are certain cases that witness evidence can be very helpful, but scientific evidence is overall more reliable and

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

Critically reflect on the positives and/or negatives of ethnic residential concentration as perceptible within specific landscapes in Sydney.

Forensic science has come a long way from where it was less than 100 years ago. It has only been relatively recently that the advancement of technology we use, has occurred. The Body Farm, an institute in Knoxville, Tennessee, is a place where dead corpses are left to rot and then studied on how the body decays in different circumstances. Death’s Acre: Inside the Legendary Body Farm tells about the farm from Dr. Bill Bass’ point of view, from the establishment of the farm, to the impact in the world of forensic science the farm has caused. David Pitt and Alynda Wheat offers their insight into the book in their reviews. The Body Farm has been a monumental stepping stone to the advancement of modern day forensic sciences. Dr. Bill Bass, is making

In the article " Trial Lawyers Cater to Jurors' Demands for Visual Evidence" by Sylvia Hsiech, visual evidence can be used very effectively to reach jurors in courtrooms cases, but such evidence must adhere to the rules of evidence and should not be overdone. According to the author, There is a high demand for lawyers to use sound bite-like presentation and hiring visual artists to illustrate piles of documents and basically bringing them to life. For example hiring an visual artist you can keep the jurors entertained and present it visual so they can see and understand it. In the article, the author talks about Brain Carney because according to him every case can be visual. For instance whether you think your case can't be transfer into a

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 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

Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder, we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully, or it can be contaminated. A case I would like to mention is the Calvin Willis Case. One night in 1982, three young girls were sleeping alone in a Shreveport, Louisiana home when a man in cowboy boots came into the house and raped the oldest girl, who was Ten years old. When police started to investigate the rape, the three girls all remembered the attack differently. One police report said the Ten year old victim didn’t see her attacker’s face. Another report which wasn’t introduced at trial said she identified Calvin Willis, who lived in the neighbourhood. The girl’s mother testified at trial that neighbours had mentioned Willis’s name when discussing who might have committed the crime. The victim testified that she was shown photos and told to pick the man without a full beard. She testified that she didn’t pick anyone, police said she picked Willis. Willis was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. In 2003, DNA testing proved Willis’ innocence and he was released. He had served nearly Twenty Two years in prison for a crime he didn’t

The case that I studied was R. Vs. Edgar (2000) 142 C.C.C (3rd) 401 Ontario Court of Appeal. The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder in the stabbing death of his girlfriend, Tracey Kelsh. The appellant and the deceased were involved in a short-term romantic relationship. Both were heavy users of cocaine and alcohol. The appellant and the deceased were partying and consuming cocaine and alcohol. After a violent struggle in the bathroom of the appellant’s apartment, the deceased suffered multiple stab wounds and other injuries. The most serious and fatal wound she sustained was a deep cut slitting her throat. The appellant testified that the deceased came after him, wielding two kitchen knives. She backed him into the bathroom and shouted bizarre statements about bikers and leveled accuse stations against him. A violent struggle ensued in the bathroom. The appellant testified that it was pitch dark, he was

Pretrial publicity has been address by the U.S. Supreme Court since the 1960s. In the revolutionary case of Irwin v. Dowd, the defendant, Leslie Irvin, was convicted of committing six murders in a rural area of Indiana. The crimes generated extensive media coverage, in both television and print. Irvin argued that the pretrial publicity prevented him from receiving a fair trial by an impartial jury. The Court agreed, noting that eight of the twelve jurors who heard the case had decided that Irvin was guilty before the trial began. Despite these admissions, the trial judge had accepted as conclusive the jurors' statements that they would be able to render an impartial verdict. The Court held that the substantial publicity surrounding the case made the trial judge's determination of juror impartiality erroneous (Bruschke & Loges, 2004). This court case set out a basic rule that when pretrial publicity has been substantial, a trial court should not necessarily accept a juror's assertion of impartiality. In these cases a presumption is raised that the jurors are biased. Because of the bias of the jury members, the defendant is not given a trial of an impartial jury, a Sixth Amendment right. Media coverage should still be allowed to report information regarding the trial, but only after it has begun. In this way, jury members will not be exposed to pretrial publicity that biases their opinion of the defendant.

The CSI Effect is a phenomenon reported by prosecutors who claim that television shows based on scientific crime solving have made actual jurors reluctant to vote to convict when forensic evidence is neither necessary nor available (Nolo, 2011). The criminalistics and criminology aspects are especially exaggerated; most evidence that is shown is not as clear in real life. Fingerprints of victims are not as easily marked or proven. DNA evidence which requires certain equipment/technology in the lab, is usually too expensive, and isn’t even something you would see in most crime labs. Crimes are also not as traceable as they seem on TV. Many crime scenes take up to week’s sometimes even months to get all of the evidence and process it. The CSI Effect is influencing the public because the more popular those crime shows get the number of student majors in forensics science has increased rapidly. They are interested in the fast pace quick higher level learning skills that they portray in the TV only to learn that it is nothing like how it is on TV. The CSI Effect is also affecting the real world of criminal justice because it creates unreasonable expectations in the minds of jurors (Hoffmeister, 2011). They want and expect scientific evidence linking the defendant to the crime

These scenes dramatize the lab technician’s work and make it seem intriguing and thrilling. This results in the intense obsession of viewers and their conviction that the images presented in these scenes are representative real life. Dante Mancini also refers to what is known as the strong prosecutor’s effect in his article “The ‘CSI Effect’ in an Actual Juror Sample: Why Crime Show Genre May Matter”. The strong prosecutor’s effect, as Mancini describes it, is one aspect of the CSI effect referring to the expectations jurors who frequently watch crime shows have for forensic evidence (Mancini 544). There are clearly many different aspects and impacts of the CSI effects that can be positive or negative.

Just like the arguments made for cameras in the courtroom and the jury deliberation room by the media, the courtroom working group which

Photographs are used to document history, however selected images are chosen to do so. Often times these images graphically show the cruelty of mankind. In her book, Regarding the Pain of Others, Susan Sontag asks, "What does it mean to protest suffering, as distinct from acknowledging it?" To acknowledge suffering is just to capture it, to point it out and show somebody else that it exists. In order to protest suffering, there has to be some sort of moral decision that what is shown in the photograph is wrong, and a want from the viewer to change that.

Evidence is the key element in determining the guilt or innocence of those accused of crimes against society in a criminal court of law. Evidence can come in the form of weapons, documents, pictures, tape recordings and DNA. According to the American Heritage College dictionary, evidence is the documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law (476). It is shown in court as an item of proof, to impeach or rehabilitate a witness, and to determine a sentence. This paper will examine two murder cases, O.J. Simpson and Daniel Taylor.