The Csi Effect On The Minds Of Jurors

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

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.

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)

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.).

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.

What is the CSI Effect and does it’s effect have an impact on juror’s decision making? “The CSI Effect- defines the impact crime dramas, such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, have on juror’s decision –making process (Parker, 2)”. The Article The Portrayal of the American Legal System in Prime Time Television Crime Dramas; investigated how the legal system is portrayed in prime time network television. “Each week CSI drew in audiences averaging more than 10 million viewers (Parker, 109)”. These episodes portrayed forensic scientist using expensive and advanced equipment to do DNA testing and evaluate gunshot residue left at crime scenes. The article The Verdict on Television discusses “The

Forensic science advancements have been very useful, but methods today are still not as reliable as they should be. Innocent people are still being convicted of crimes they didn’t commit. If these methods are advanced further, the number of innocents on death row will hopefully

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

These scenes dramatize the lab technician’s work and make it seem intriguing and thrilling. This results in the intense obsession of viewers and their conviction that the images presented in these scenes are representative real life. Dante Mancini also refers to what is known as the strong prosecutor’s effect in his article “The ‘CSI Effect’ in an Actual Juror Sample: Why Crime Show Genre May Matter”. The strong prosecutor’s effect, as Mancini describes it, is one aspect of the CSI effect referring to the expectations jurors who frequently watch crime shows have for forensic evidence (Mancini 544). There are clearly many different aspects and impacts of the CSI effects that can be positive or negative.

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.

Some individuals do not trust the evidence collection process and may feel that law enforcement professions may often manipulate evidence to get their desired results for a trial or conviction. The evidence goes through safeguards to help prevent the evidence from being manipulated, but there are opportunities to manipulate evidence or to alter the evidence in the collection process to benefit an individual’s agenda during the trial process. I will identify some areas where a corrupt investigator would be able to alter evidence.

Forensic science is a broad term that refers to the use of science or technology in a court room environment. Forensic science plays an important role in modern popular culture; the police procedural is highly dependent upon cutting-edge forensic science. Moreover, many people are aware of the impact of DNA testing on the modern criminal justice landscape. However, forensic science actually predates many modern scientific advances; almost as long as there have been controversies, there has been some type of forensic science.