The Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) Effect is a phenomenon in which television programs that feature forensic science, such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, Criminal Minds and the Law and Order franchise, have influenced the approach jurors use to assess evidence in a criminal trial. This poses a challenge when prosecuting a defendant as it gives jurors improbable expectations. As the use of DNA (DeoxyriboNucleic Acid) testing, hand writing analysis, and testing of gunshot residue has become prevalent in television programs, jurors have come to expect the use of such testing in trials, which, in turn, has influenced the way cases are investigated and prosecuted, but has not necessarily influenced the rate of acquittals and convictions. …show more content…
Enquiring about their individual perceptions of juries who demonstrated indications of a CSI Effect influence (Heinrick, 2009) and concluded that 38% suspected that at least one of “their trials had resulted in an acquittal or hung jury because forensic evidence wasn’t available though they believed the case to be strong enough for a conviction.” (MCAO Survey, cited in McDonald, A. 2008) Furthermore, the prosecutors surveyed acknowledged altering the process of jury selection before trial and obtaining jurors that are easily persuaded due to their belief in the reality of CSI-based programs. (McDonald, A. 2008)
Subsequently, both the government and the justice system are expressing concern regarding the implications of the CSI Effect. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has published a video on the topic while the Maricopa County, Phoenix attorney and prosecutor of the County called upon television networks to amend program credits to reflect their fictional status due to their “real-life impact on justice”. (Cole, Dioso-Villa, 2009). A further element introduced is prosecutors’ belief that the CSI Effect has made it challenging to win cases where forensic science is immaterial. (Heinrick
…show more content…
This could be harmful to innocent parties, as the focus is on manipulating the evidence to ensure a conviction, rather than on identifying the actual culprit. (Cooley, Turvey, 2014, p.177). There have been cases of scientists providing inaccurate testimonies in court which has led to multiple lawsuits from wrongful convictions. A prosecutor who is proven to have prosecuted a case on an incorrect testimony would be impacted as it would ruin their
Since the airing of the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and the other televised series that followed have led jurors to compare fiction with reality. The shows have changed the view on the real world of forensic science as the series have a world of forensic science of their own. For this paper the televised series titled Bones by forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs will be used as an example for comparison. In the series Bones Dr. Temperance Brenan arrives at the scene of the crime to examine the skeletal remains found in the scene of the crime equipped with one or more forensic kits. Upon momentarily examining the skeletal remains Dr. Brenan is able to determine the gender, ethnicity, and age. When this type of scenario is compared to nonfictional
Other evidence located within the grave consisted of a generic watch, two cigarette butts, a button, a washer and a shell casing. All of these could be analysed for finger prints and DNA. The cigarette butts would also show a serial number indicating the brand (shown in Figure 3), which can be useful if it is found a victim or offender smokes a particular type of cigarette.
Jurors have unrealistic ideas of evidence processing. ”Such programs give the impression that forensic laboratories are fully staffed with highly trained personnel, stocked with a full complement of state-of-the-art instrumentation and rolling in the resources to close every case in a timely fashion.” (Houck 85) Forensic laboratories face funding deficits, not enough suitably trained staff and the consistent advancement of technology. University of Maryland forensic scientist Thomas Mauriello estimates that about 40 percent of the forensic science shown on CSI does not exist. Carol Henderson, director of the National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law at Stetson University College of Law, told a publication of that institution that jurors are “sometimes disappointed if some of the new technologies that they think exist are not used.” (Houck 87) Investigators often have to explain to victims that it is not possible to collect a sample of...
Since its debute, Kimberlianne Podlas discusses how “CSI has been attributed with causing a rash of unjustified acquittals, exerting on trials what is called the CSI Effect.” This refers to how CSI influences or impacts a jury’s interpretation of a case. She goes on to say that, “Even though forensic evidence is prevalent on CSI, it is a factor in only a small portion of real-life cases.” Additionally, “many of the techniques shown on CSI do not exist, and this has led “forensic scientists to complain of the near infallibility of forensic science after watching a few episodes of CSI.” The CSI Effect has caused these viewers of the program, who have gone onto become jurors, to expect the presentation of forensic evidence in order to prove their cases, and without it, they are unlikely to reach a guilty verdict. This has led prosecutors to expect the need to present forensic evidence as a prerequisite to conviction. Even with eyewitnesses and other findings to offset this lack of forensic evidence, many unjustified acquittals have resulted from this mindset as jurors do not believe a case can be proven beyond reasonable
Crime is a common public issue for people living in the inner city, but is not limited to only urban or highly populated cities as it can undoubtedly happen in small community and rural areas as well. In The Real CSI, the documentary exemplified many way in which experts used forensic science as evidence in trial cases to argue and to prove whether a person is innocent or guilty. In this paper, I explained the difference in fingerprinting technology depicted between television shows and in reality, how DNA technology change the way forensics evidence is used in the court proceedings, and how forensic evidence can be misused in the United States adversarial legal system.
The crime scene was then examined and a list of possible pieces of evidence were recorded down. Including a sketch of the crime scene, Anna Garcia’s house, with the locations of all of the pieces of evidence. All of these items listed help develop a theory about Anna’s death. This theory then helped establish a list of possible suspects. The person of interest list included a number of four individuals and each one had a relation with Anna. The list included (1) Alex Garcia- Anna’s ex-husband. They had an unpleasant divorce the year before and in a result Alex quickly remarried a much younger woman, while Anna remained single. Alex and his newlywed wife are expecting to have a baby soon. Although, Alex may be suffering from a few financial
Therefore, the criminal justice system relies on other nonscientific means that are not accepted or clear. Many of forensic methods have implemented in research when looking for evidence, but the methods that are not scientific and have little or anything to do with science. The result of false evidence by other means leads to false testimony by a forensic analyst. Another issue with forensic errors is that it is a challenge to find a defense expert (Giannelli, 2011). Defense experts are required to help the defense attorneys defend and breakdown all of the doubts in the prosecutors scientific findings in criminal cases. Scientific information is integral in a criminal prosecution, and a defense attorney needs to have an expert to assist he/she in discrediting the prosecution (Giannelli,
The criminal justice system has changed a lot since the good old days of the Wild West when pretty much anything was legal. Criminals were dealt with in any fashion the law enforcement saw fit. The science of catching criminals has evolved since these days. We are better at catching criminals than ever and we owe this advancement to forensic science. The development of forensic science has given us the important techniques of fingerprinting and DNA analysis. We can use these techniques to catch criminals, prove people's innocence, and keep track of inmates after they have been paroled. There are many different ways of solving crimes using forensic evidence. One of these ways is using blood spatter analysis; this is where the distribution and pattern of bloodstains is studied to find the nature of the event that caused the blood spatter. Many things go into the determination of the cause including: the effects of various types of physical forces on blood, the interaction between blood and the surfaces on which it falls, the location of the person shedding the blood, the location and actions of the assailant, and the movement of them both during the incident. Another common type of forensic evidence is trace evidence. This is commonly recovered from any number of items at a crime scene. These items can include carpet fibers, clothing fibers, or hair found in or around the crime scene. Hairs recovered from crime scenes can be used as an important source of DNA. Examination of material recovered from a victim's or suspect's clothing can allow association to be made between the victim and other people, places, or things involved in the investigation. DNA analysis is the most important part of forensic science. DNA evidence can come in many forms at the crime scene. Some of these forms include hair; bodily fluids recovered at the crime scene or on the victim's body, skin under the victim's fingernails, blood, and many others. This DNA can be the basis of someone's guilt or innocence; it has decided many cases in the twentieth century. As the times continue to change and the criminals get smarter we will always need to find new ways to catch them. Forensic science is the most advanced method yet, but is only the beginning. As the field of science grows so will the abilities of the
This paper explores deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) collection and its relationship to solving crimes. The collection of DNA is one of the most important steps in identifying a suspect in a crime. DNA evidence can either convict or exonerate an individual of a crime. Furthermore, the accuracy of forensic identification of evidence has the possibility of leaving biased effects on a juror (Carrell, Krauss, Liberman, Miethe, 2008). This paper examines Carrells et al’s research along with three other research articles to review how DNA is collected, the effects that is has on a juror and the pros and cons of DNA collection in the Forensic Science and Criminal Justice community.
Forensic evidence can provide just outcomes in criminal matters. However, it is not yet an exact science as it can be flawed. It can be misrepresented through the reliability of the evidence, through nonstandard guidelines, and through public perception. Forensic science can be dangerously faulty without focus on the ‘science’ aspect. It can at times be just matching patterns based on an individual’s interpretations. This can lead to a miscarriage of justice and forever alter a person’s life due to a perceived “grey area” (Merritt C, 2010) resulting in a loss of confidence in the reliability of forensic evidence.
In the following literature review, scholarly and peer-reviewed journals, articles from popular news media, and surveys have been synthesized to contribute to the conversation pertaining to forensics in pop culture in the courtroom and the overall criminal justice system. This conversation has become a growing topic of interest over just the past few years since these crime shows started appearing on the air. The rising popularity of this genre makes this research even more relevant to study to try to bring back justice in the courtroom.
Costanzo, Mark, and Daniel Krauss. Forensic and legal psychology: psychological science applied to law. New York, NY: Worth Publishers, 2012. Print.
In recent years, however, such programs as CSI that follows detectives at the Las Vegas Police Department Crime Scene Investigations Bureau as they solve puzzles and catch criminals. Perhaps one of the most well known shows with a forensic psychology theme, CSI has a large impact on viewers perceptions of forensic psychology. On one hand, the increased popularity of forensic psychology because of the show is good and more people are taking an interest in forensic psychology as a career. On the other hand, the forensic psychology that viewers see every week on television may not be exactly the same as forensic psychology in reality. Particularly programs such as CSI also overstate the ability of “hard” evidence (also known as forensic evidence), such as fingerprints and DNA, to provide evidence of definite innocence or guilt (Trask, 2007). They often disregard other components of the investigative process, such as police questioning, despite these being equally valid to establishing guilt (Nolan, 2006). This over-reliance on forensic evidence, due to the importance of forensic science being dramatized by television crime dramas, is also known as the CSI
Crime Scene Investigation For my assignment, I will be looking into the case of James Bulger, aged 2 years old, who was kidnapped and murdered by John Venables and Robert Thompson on February 12th 1993. Through evidence found at the crime scene and testimonial statements, the police saw that the two boys, ages 11, abducted James from Bootle Strand Shopping Center, Liverpool. They took him on a long, aimless walk where they brutally attacked him and left him for dead. In my assignment I will show how work done by the police, forensic scientists and Investigators helped to convict Jon and Robert.
On its own, blood doesn’t fluoresce under ultraviolet light” (PennState). However, this information presented as actual science in these crime shows create a false sense of expertise within casual viewers. Dubbed as the “CSI Effect”, jurors begin to believe that forensic evidence is the only credible source of information in convicting people of crimes. According to Evan Durnal of the University of Central Missouri’s Criminal Justice Department, he claims to