The Csi Effect On Crime

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

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

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.

Since the time that the scientific science dramatization "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" turned into a tremendous hit and generated its fans, reporters have been worried about what they instituted the "CSI Effect." The hypothesis behind the effect is that fans of the well-known show disguise misguided judgments about the law that they bring with them into the court as jurors. In this way, the trepidation is that the TV show is at last influencing the results of trials - and not in a great manner. Criminal justice researchers have started to study the inquiry of whether nationals who are called to serve on juries bring unreasonable desires and convictions to the court as a consequence of TV projects. The impact that these projects may have on the jurors, their desires, and their choices is known as the CSI effect.

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

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

Different forms of media, such as television, films, books, and newspapers, have similar ways of portraying the criminal justice system. The media constructs representations of crime and justice and in doing this, it presents an often dramatized representation of the criminal justice system; and this does not just influence on the public’s lay view of crime but also for criminal justice experts (Marsh, 2014). In the media it is commonly known that they are a business, and businesses need to make a profit. Because of this, the media’s portrayal of the criminal justice system has been very negative. With the news, their main purpose is to produce what sells. So many of them would edit the information they have gathered and make a story that will sell. Also the media does not show the full process of the criminal justice as a quick process, while in fact it is not. For example, last year, Netflix released a short series called “Making A Murderer”. Most people claimed that they feel like they can solve a crime when they finished watching a series. While that series is very factual, it does not hit every single step of the criminal justice process.

Television has become a vital aspect of daily life, within modern society; every aspect of television exhibits, to a certain extent, a reliance on genre (Mittell, 2001). Industries rely on genre to produce programs, and audiences use genres as a means of organizing fan practices (Mittell, 2001). According to a 2006 Nelson Media Research study, ratings confirm that aside from prime time shows such as American Idol and Survivor, part-time crime drama’s have been classified as one of the most favoured genre (DeTardo-Bora, pg. 154, 2009). The relationship between the media and criminal justice system is delicate, where more often than not, crimes are portrayed in a false light (Graveline, pg. 1, 2015). These misconceptions lead to

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