The CSI Effect

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

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

Hollywood scripts and television programming are filled with storylines of crime and criminal justice. The viewing public consumes crime

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.

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

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)

The CSI Effect is the belief that television crime shows are effecting decisions made in the court rooms from jurors. Prosecutors and Judges believe that these shows are causing jurors to be out of touch with reality when it comes to making a decision about a case in the court room. The Jurors are said to be out of touch with reality because they have a demand for conclusive scientific evidence. People who experience the CSI Effect tend to think they are experts in the field. Many forensic professionals have faced the occasional person at a crime scene telling them how to do their jobs the way they saw it on CSI (The CSI Effect-Crime Museum, n.d.).

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

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

For a society that is greatly influenced by Crime Scene Investigation, Criminal Minds and Bones, a confession of the offender is seen as an ultimate checkmate of the case because it implies the guilt of the confessor. Thus, a confession, especially the ones with detailed account and perfect representation of emotions (Leo, 2008), outweighs the evidences of innocence and stirs the case against the accused (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1985). People believe that they are open-minded about the possibility of false confession but in reality, the public, law enforcers and justice officials have biases that often infer guilt to the suspect instead of investigating for the truth, which leads to wrongful conviction. According to Leo and Drizin (2004), false confession is the primary cause of law miscarriage (Leo and Drizzin, 2004). False confessors lived many years in jail before being exonerated while others remain imprisoned (Leo and Drizzin, 2004).

Jurors' understanding of the law is typically undeveloped, and therefore their schemas for legal concepts are often correspondingly incorrect or undeveloped. For this reason, existing jury instructions, which are typically given to jurors after the presentation of evidence, do little to counteract or correct jurors' undeveloped or misinformed schemas. Hence, when developing jury instructions, drafters should not only consider whether they are comprehensible, but also emphasize on whether they could provide guidance to help jurors navigate through the discrepancies between their own concepts and the proper definitions of the law. Based on findings from psychology studies, lawyers and judges should attempt to develop jurors' schemas for the relevant legal concepts to make them better organized and more accessible, allowing for more thoughtful judgment and more accurate decision-making. To accomplish this, jurors should be provided with both well-written jury instructions and pre-trial explanations of the applicable law, including examples of how the law applies and to which they can analogize the facts of the present case. Judges could also help jurors to overcome schema perseverance by asking them to consider the evidence from both sides and to attempt to create plausible explanations for both sides of a case. These steps might help counteract inappropriate preexisting schemas, activate legally appropriate schemas, and result in better decision-making by jurors. Last but not least, the above recommendations for combating biased schemas need to be thoroughly tested and confirmed by empirical studies before they could be

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

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 is a lot of distorted information when it comes to watching the televisions shows on television such as CSI, Dexter, Criminal Minds, and Law and Order. In real life situations, usually the person that is investigating the crime is not the same person that does the crime lab. On televisions shows, they will only work one crime scene at a time and not many crimes that have been committed. As well the show will not show the numerous amounts of crimes that an investigator has to deal with on a day to day basis.

In today’s culture we seem to find ourselves wanting to watch more and more crime movies and television shows. In an article on The Daily Dot by S.E. Smith, he asks the question “Why are we glamorizing police brutality on television?” Smith goes on to say that: “Culturally, we’re fascinated by law enforcement. Long before Telecrime and the later Telecrimes, people were ravenously consuming penny dreadfuls, procedural serials, and detective novels. The police and law enforcement genre dominates pop culture to this day, from the mystery section of the bookstore to every night on television; at any given time, some network is airing a law enforcement show.”