In March 2005, Cbs News Correspondent, Brian Dakss (2005),

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

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.”

Holmgren and Fordham looked into the CSI effect on jurors in Canada and Australia to see if they have unrealistic expectations when it comes to forensic evidence. They used college students who were eligible for jury duty in Canada and in Australia the used people who had already been selected for jury duty. To obtain the results they used surveys for both groups to measure their view habits and verdicts, along with interviews for the Australian participant. The results showed that while some are influenced by their viewing habits in terms of forensic evidence it didn’t have the results that they were expecting

The Real CSI, is a documentary film that was written and produced by Andres Cedial and Lowell Bergman for PBS Frontline, in 2012. Lowell Bergman, also the Correspondent, takes viewers on an investigative journey, that examines three cases. They present information that will make viewers reevaluate what they thought to be true about forensic science by questioning their preconceived knowledge that may have been gained from television shows. Cedial and Lowel’s production is successful because of the methods they used to create credibility, easy understanding, and invoking emotion.

Anti-scientific bias has been an American evidence law for several reason. Many of admissibility and legal sufficiency rules have been proved to be bias in America. This bias has been an underlying issue that typically for the citizen that become potential juror because they cannot critically evaluate the evidence like a highly professional would. In the results of a national educational test, it was demonstrated that there is a widespread in the United States of scientific illiteracy. With the principle of scientific proof, there has been a lot of controversy over drugs testing presents with forensic science and the unknown of the citizen who are posed as jurors during this time. This was a debate that the scientific community could help and

With the first batch of surveyed jurors, the study found that the more often jurors watched a crime show (in this study CSI was the main crime show in question) the more accurate they thought the show was. Also, the study found that 46.3% of jurors expected to see some scientific evidence in every case, 21.9% expected to see DNA evidence in every case, and 36.4% expected to see fingerprint evidence in every case. With this information, the study found that the jurors who watched CSI had higher expectations for the presence of scientific evidence compared to the jurors who did not watch CSI. It is important to note, however, that even though the CSI jurors had higher expectations those expectations did not equate to higher rates of acquittals

Lastly, is there any factional data behind the CSI Effect? There is some evidence to suggest that prosecutors and defense lawyers have also been affected by the media hype surrounding the CSI Effect. “An American researcher, Monica Robbers, has conducted one of the few extensive studies on the effects of forensic television shows, such as CSI, on criminal justice practitioners. In her study, Robbers (2008:95) found that 85 percent of 290 American lawyers and judges felt that the CSI Effect had changed their job, and in particular the time it took to explain DNA evidence to the jury” (Robbers 2008:95). There is countless documentation stating that jurors specifically requested forensic evidence. “In the summer of 2006 they set out to find whether

Both the prosecutors and barrier lawyers are feeling the should be more exhaustive where they didn't should be some time recently, regardless of the way that the additional exertion is generally not required. As indicated by a late article in USA Today, "some resistance legal counselors say that CSI and comparable indicates make members of the jury depend too intensely on investigative discoveries, and are unwilling to acknowledge that those discoveries can be traded off by human or specialized blunders". Prosecutors are additionally feeling the impact; they say shows can make it more troublesome for them to win feelings in the substantial larger part of cases in which investigative proof is immaterial or truant. Another issue with the show is that it frequently utilizes innovation that is either profoundly adapted, exploratory, or is non-existent. A few members of the jury anticipate that both sides will utilize this sort of innovation, the issue being that the majority of the times this innovation doesn't meet the Frye Standard, an arrangement of strategies utilized as a benchmark for general acknowledgment of the way the confirmation was tried by mainstream

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

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

Jurors believe that having DNA tests, hand writing analyses and even gun shot residue are important to convict someone when these are not always relevant to a case. For instance, we all remember the Casey Anthony trial during the summer of 2011. This was the case that the mother Casey Anthony was on trial for the murder of her two- year –old daughter, Caylee Marie Anthony. Many people were outranged with the not guilty verdict that she had received. The circumstantial evidence that the prosecution had presented seemed to be strong enough to receive at least one guilty verdict of the three offenses.

There is a television in most ever persons home worldwide in 2015, and in America specifically, the problem at hand is a transparent falsity. That problem being, how criminal cases are solved and prosecuted. The founding fathers created a document that Americans see as the greatest constitution of all time, based on the longevity, until now. In the quote from the constitution above, the founding fathers set forth the right for a speedy trial, by an impartial jury, in the district of the crime committed, to be confronted by the witnesses against him (U.S. Const. Amend. 6). Unfortunately, due to what is called “The CSI Effect”, these stipulations have fallen short. According to Byers, Author/editor of The CSI Effect: Television, Crime, and Governance, the CSI effect is defined as a belief in the near-infallibility of forensic science and its ability to solve all crimes. At the 2002 conference of the American Association for the advancement of Science, forensic anthropologist Max Houck described the CSI effect as an “infallible Juggernaut” which leads people to believe that science, as portrayed on television, can determine guilt or innocence beyond the shadow of a doubt ( Byers, p. 3). The name “CSI effect” specifically comes from the television show CSI that depicts exactly what Byers described above. CSI is the child of many other shows on television that show seemingly

Criminal justice systems must ensure the review of the forensic science by providing standardization of the interpretation of evidence. Trusting that the system at hand which relies upon an adversary system can ensure adequate protection from faulty forensic science is unrealized (Gershman, 2007). Most importantly is the lack of checks and balances in a judicial system where according to the Bureau of Justice Department (2011), 90 to 95% of criminal cases in state and federal level are resolved by plea bargain (3). Forensic science should be validated before its use through empirical standardized, and the court system must subscribe to the ethical use of forensics to serve justice (Garrett & Neufeld, 2009). Prosecutorial misconduct contributes significantly to wrongful convictions (Joy,2006). Examples are not isolated nor rare, and conclusion coupled with unprincipled motivation requires a more stringent requirements ethics, transparency, and standardization (Joy,2006). Criminal justice systems do not identify innocent defendants, thereby losing significant factors that contribute to wrongful conviction (Gould, J. et al., 2013). Police and the courts continuously increase their reliance on forensic science to corroborate evidence, signifying the necessity for validation and standardization (Strom, K., & Hickman, M., 2015). However, we must embrace that flawed forensics impacts our criminal justice system and can contribute to the death of the innocent. Blind faith in a proven imperfect system jeopardizes

“In 1984, a British geneticist named Alec Jeffreys stumbled upon one of our most important forensic tools: DNA fingerprinting. Since his “eureka moment,” the scientific technique has been used successfully to identify perpetrators of a crime, clarify paternity and exonerate people wrongly convicted” (Jones). DNA evidence, specifically simple-mixture, is the most accurate type of forensic evidence we currently have at our disposal, but even it is not infallible. Other types of forensic evidence are much less accurate, but unfortunately their use is still permitted in U.S courtrooms. Jurors may be misled by experts within the courtroom as well. These misconceptions about the accuracy of forensic science and the field in general lead to many problems in the courtroom.