Criminal Minds, NCIS, And Law And Order

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 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 and law are often seen as two opposing disciplines; forensic science is often presumed to be factual and law can be interpreted in multiple ways. Science and law reach conclusions in different ways which is an issue. Due to these differences, miscommunication is often the cause for miscarriages of justice. In order to address this problem, people working in the criminal justice system should have more knowledge of forensic science. There are many factors that contribute to the lack of understanding between forensic science and the people involved in the court process. Firstly, the adversarial model will be discussed in relation to how these procedures prevent effective communication between forensic evidence and lawyers. Secondly, the role that expert witnesses play in the presentation of scientific evidence and how jurors play a role in interpreting their evidence, will be considered. Thirdly it will be argued that lawyers and judges lack adequate knowledge of forensic science that is needed to conduct accurate trials. Lastly, possible solutions to improve the communication between forensic science and the actors involved in the criminal justice system. Juries, lawyers and judges should be more educated in understanding forensic science.

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

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

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,

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.

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.

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 impact can best be portrayed as a wonder where TV "taught" members of the jury will probably not convict somebody who is blameworthy on the grounds that strategies and strategies they saw from the anecdotal TV program were not connected for the situation. Max Houck, Director of the Legal Science Initiative at West Virginia University, says "The CSI impact is essentially the impression of the close dependability of legal science in light of the TV appear". The CSI impact is a late marvel that can be ascribed to the impact of broad communications. The term began showing up in legitimate vocabulary in 2003; around 3 years after the show and its twist offs turned out to be uncontrollably well known TV alternatives for the American open.

The CSI Effect is the dramatized representation of forensic science on crime television shows (Shelton, 2008). The effect was named after the most popular show Criminal Scene Investigation. These crime television shows impact the audience’s perception on how a criminal trial functions (Shelton, 2008). As the show Criminal Scene Investigation continues to gain millions of viewers, the audience has began to hold high expectations for evidence in a courtroom (Ericksen, 2017). Many viewers have began to distance themselves from the reality of the criminal courts procedures because of these shows. Moreover the CSI has been affecting jurors decisions in court (Ericksen, 2017). Jurors have begun to depend solely on the scientific evidence since crime shows portray that testimonies hardly matter in a case.

CSI will be called to court to give evidence and expertise to the judge, jury and barristers depending on how serious the case is. When appearing in court you must dress smartly, for example, A suit or a sensible dress, when a beeing called upon you will be swearing an oath and hold a bible while doing so, the must state the name and relevant qualification and occupation and their employer, for

Forensic science involves the use of science to solve criminal and civil crimes but mostly lies on the side of criminal investigations. It makes it possible to identify the criminals based on the DNA traces they leave behind. It involves analyses of blood, DNA and other evidences and later on uses the findings as evidence in the court of law. It helps in solving the various crimes in the world and this has been the greatest contributor to the growth of the sector. Cases that were previously considered impossible due to lack of evidenced tracing to the victim can now be solved using forensic science evidences. The essay aims at analyzing the different aspects of forensic science that are used in the process of solving criminal activities. It will also look at the different cases that forensic science was used to solve crimes in a court of law.