The Nerc Effect : The CSI Effect And Juurors

In the past, the jury learned from the forensic scientists’ testimony; but now, they’re learning from television and a lot of reality shows. Consequently, what they’re learning is not necessarily what is actually done (Honeycutt). However, those jurors who watch criminal investigation television shows do believe that what they’re seeing on TV is what does go on in real life and they expect to see it in court. This is because, according to Shelton, “the more frequently jurors watched a given program, the more accurate they perceived it to be.”

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.

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.

Next, it would not be difficult to persuade the jury with outside factors. In today’s time, the news often displays huge court cases on their channel; the information that they give may not always be accurate. This can allow the jury to obtain false information about the case. Additionally, television shows, such as Nancy Grace, give strong opinions that can alter the jury's decision about a

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

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

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.

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

As the District Attorney, my job consists often of evaluating the competency of our local legal system and its processes. Due to the rather high levels of incarceration in this city, and the recent increase in use of forensic evidence, it has been proposed that recent research upon the topic of bias within forensic investigators be considered. This research incorporates information about confirmation bias, and personal stereotypes within the forensic community. In the study done by Brusko and Ibrahim, they looked to examine these qualities and how they affect wrongful incarcerations. Thus, by examining the information and the results obtained in this study, we hope to gain new insight into what may affect our incarceration rates and how false convictions factor in.

    A review of false convictions that involved forensic science and can help identify critical lessons for forensic scientists as they perform testing, interpret results, render conclusions, and testify in court from the national institute of justice.

A psychological research suggested that once people begin to form an impression, they unwillingly interpret, seek and begin to create behavioral decision making, and data can verify that (Rassin, Eric; Sommer, Samuel; Miller, Monica; Yaniv, Oren). Even if there is no prior personally relevant reason to confirm a hypothesis, people seem to favor confirmation as the default testing strategy. Further hypothesized that the preference for confirming evidence is influenced by two main factors, Facts v. Perception.

The topic that I had researched about being “The CSI Effect- Does It Still Exist” which was written by Donald E. Shelton. In a study conducted by Shelton (2009), an honorable judge and author, it was found that per responses of a 2006 week after week Nielsen rating: 30 million people viewed CSI on one night. 70 million viewed no less than one of the three CSI show and 40 million watched two other forensic dramas, Without a Trace and Cold Case (p. 34). The significance of this study is that it demonstrates exactly what number of people watch these criminal investigations show all the time and this is useful in deciding how far-reaching the CSI effect is. Based on these reactions a later study was directed in which they found that “in the “each