The CSI Effect and its Implications in Forensic Science Essay

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

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 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.

Less frequently, individuals will allude to the "CSI Effect" to allude to the inverse, nonetheless. Defense attorneys, for instance, now and again contend that attendants impacted by "CSI" have a tendency to accept that any scientific confirmation gathered will be implicating. This is likewise hazardous, commentators say, in light of the fact that individuals don't normally think about the likelihood of error or even fraud [source: Cole. Scientific researchers have been known to fudge results about request to get a conviction, in the event that they accept that is the thing that the police desire. Take, for instance, Joyce Gilchrist, a police scientific expert who

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)

Unfortunately, life does not always imitate art. Evidence proved that in a number of Durnal studies, that exposure to forensic science television drama series has altered the American legal system in complex and far-reaching ways. Jurors think they have a thorough understanding of science they have seen presented on television, when they do not. In a case cited by Durnal, jurors in a murder trial brought to the judge’s attention that a bloody coat introduced as evidence was not tested for DNA. The defendant admitted being present at the murder scene, so the test would not have thrown light on the identity of the true culprit. The judge stated that television is to thank for jurors knowing what DNA tests could do, but not when it was appropriate to use them. Another study revealed 62% of defense lawyers and 69% of judges agreed that jurors had unrealistic expectations of forensic evidence. Approximately half of the respondents in each category felt that jury selection was taking longer than it used to, because they had to be sure that prospective jurors were not judging scientific evidence by television standards (The CSI Effect,

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

Have you ever watched a crime scene drama on television and now believe you are a forensic science expert? This is what you call the “Crime Scene Investigation Effect (CSI)”. It came into light in the early 2000’s. In 2008, Monica Robbers, an American criminologist, defined the CSI Effect as, “the phenomenon in which jurors hold unrealistic expectations of forensic evidence and investigation techniques, and have an increased interest in the discipline of forensic science”. (Economist 2010) Millions are watching these CSI drama TV shows. In 2012-13, NCIS: Naval Criminal Investigative Service, was named the most popular watched television program in America, bringing in more viewers than Sunday Night Football according to Mancini, author of The "CSI Effect" In an Actual Juror Sample: Why Crime Show Genre May Matter.

Crime in America is increasing rapidly and many techniques have been created over the years in order to solve major crimes. Forensics science is one of the many techniques that have been created. Forensics is the use of science and technology to investigate and establish facts in criminal courts of law (free-dictionary, n.d). But there is an upcoming issue which involves the exaggerated details of forensics science. This paper explores the CSI Effect, compares and contrasts criminalistics which involves the nature of the crime and criminology which is the study of the criminal behavior, explores how criminalistics and criminology is fictionally portrayed in the media and how the CSI Effect influences the public

In this video Correspondent LOWELL BERGMAN questions the scientific validity of forensic science. He also expresses that it is not as simple as it appears on television shows. Detective. Joanna Grivetti who is a crime scene investigator in Richmond, California explains that the real life CSI is getting dirty, smelling things you don’t want to smell, seeing things you don’t want to see and dealing with blood in order to collect evidence that may seem small at the time, but will ultimately (possibly) be a big deal in solving the case.

Ever since I started watching Law and Order and CSI television shows, I knew from those shows that this is exactly what happens in real life and in court. What I was exposed to from television fooled me big time. The CSI Effect; a false portrayal of forensic science that is seen on crime television that gives public servants, citizens, and jurors a different perception of how things really work to convict a suspect. In my opinion, The CSI Effect can be very misleading causing major issues within the courts. Research from Judges, journalists, and lawyers have caused jurors to wrongfully acquit defendants that are guilty when there was no scientific evidence from the start. (The CSI Effect: Does it Really Exist? (2008). Its impossible to get back DNA results in 30 minutes or solving a crime within two hours, that is just not the case! Reality and fiction have become a blur when it comes to different crime shows. Even criminals will believe in the CSI effect, thinking that they got away with doing

Forensic science is defined as the practice of utilizing scientific methodologies to clarify judicial inquiries. The field of forensic science contains a broad range of disciplines and has become a vital aspect of criminal investigations. Some forensic disciplines are laboratory-based; while others are based on an analyst’s interpretation of observable patterns (Kourtsounis, 2009). According to the Innocence project’s website; in greater than fifty percent of wrongful convictions, the use of invalidated or improper forensic techniques played a role in cases; which were later

I have always loved suspenseful whodunit television shows, movies, and books that use forensic science to crack the cases. My favorite television show is The First 48, my favorite movie is The Silence of the Lambs, and my favorite book is The Body Farm. Therefore, I was excited to have the opportunity to take this course and learn even more about the subject of forensics. This essay gives a summary of N. E. Genge’s book, The Forensic Casebook: The Science of Crime Scene Investigation, and includes the things I disliked and liked about the book.