Another discrepancy between actual forensics and how it is portrayed in the media is the availability of information in databases. There is only a small percentage of the entire population’s fingerprints or DNA samples stored within databases such as the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). This makes finding a match between a DNA sample or fingerprint difficult, as a match would only be found if the person’s information was already stored within the database. If there is no match previously stored in a database, the fingerprint or DNA sample could be potentially rendered useless within a trial. Typically, in order to perform an analysis, investigators must already have a suspect in mind and request a DNA or fingerprint sample from him or her. If the suspect does not want to provide one however, the sample collected as evidence may not count as valid. The CSI effect creates an idealized image that all crimes can be solved with a hair or drop of blood, but this is not always the case in real life.
In a well-known study conducted by Judge Donald Shelton, jurors were asked various questions to see if there was a significant difference in the rate of acquittals between those who watched shows such as CSI and those who do not. Attorneys, judges, and journalists have claimed that watching television programs like CSI have caused jurors to wrongfully acquit guilty defendants when no scientific evidence has been presented. To test this, 1,027 jurors were randomly selected and given a questionnaire to fill out. Questions about their demographics were listed and the jurors were asked what kind of TV shows they watched, how often, and how real they believed these shows were. The survey asked questons about seven ty...
... middle of paper ...
...o say there is a connection or possible link between the two.
I began this year considering a career in forensics. After delving into the field in detail however, I see that it is a very delicate science and easily open to misinterpretation. There are many variables within forensics, the first and foremost being that of the CSI effect and how it influences our expectations of the capabilities of forensic science. While it's true that great advances have been made in the area of forensic science, it's unrealistic to expect a crime scene to be processed, evidence analyzed and a conclusive forensics report to be completed in a short time and be completely accurate 100% of the time. Forensic science has a lot of room for improvement, and understanding if, how, and why shows like CSI affect the field is of high priority. After all, this is real life and not a TV show.
The analysis of the samples should be used only to confirm or negate match between the sample taken from the crime scene fgand the sample taken from the suspect. That is, it should sdfremain as an identifgication tool only. There should be no further analysis of the DNA to suggest psychological characteristics that would make the suspect more likely to have cdfommitted the crime. This rule should apply also to samples taken from convicted dfdoffenders for a data vor dagta bank.
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.
Contextual information also affects the human comparative part of fingerprint analysis, in ways that alter the matching of the same fingerprints, years apart; however, when contextual information is provided, it actually helps 20% of forensic technicians, but that still leaves 80% hindered by contextual information (Dror et al, 2006). Contextual information affects the psychological aspects of perception and problem-solving, in a way that can obscure information that does not support the context, and it can even affect how forensic technician’s view and handle forensic evidence (Bernstein et al, 2013). However, there are some advantages of contextual information, because it can give the forensic division a mental shortcut, saving time and money; however, these shortcuts lead to inaccurate and biased conclusions. This essay has shown that contextual information creates erroneous mistakes and prejudiced results in forensic investigations. A possible way to remove the negative effects of contextual information is to have the forensic technicians, not know the context of the crime so that they do not
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 (CJSG). Although the connection between the CSI Effect and a criminal’s mind is a growing problem, the CSI Effect influencing jurors in the United States by causing unrealistic expectations for definite forensic evidence, creating an increased ‘knowledge’ about forensic science and by creating an expectation for criminal cases and trials to be equivalent to what happens on popular criminal justice television shows is a much bigger issue.
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.
Whereas the real picture of forensic evidence is unlike what is represented in movies and television shows where a fingerprint or a trace of hair is found, then it’s game over for the criminal. Reality is not as straightforward. As more people are exposed to the unreal forensic world through television and media the likeliness for a wrong conviction increases with juries assuming the evidence involves more science than what it really does, this is known as the CSI Effect. Further education and training is needed for the people of the court, the forensic specialists, and so called experts. The people in courts do not question any of the ‘professionals’ and just trust in their expertise. The court could overcome this perception by requiring explanation of error rates in a forensic field. To do this, testing examiner error rates will be necessary which means further research. Forensic science has such a large effect on the prosecution of suspects, experts have been known to provide questionable and at times incorrect evidence. When a false conviction occurs the true perpetrator is set free. Once realized, the public doubts the justice system and the reliability of the forensic evidence even more. At this point in time, forensic is an inexact
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.
The media has had far reaching effects on many aspects of our society. The new coined term, “CSI effect,” is real. Many individual spend their time watching a variety of television programs for entertainment purposes. Some of the shows are factitious crime drama’s that use farfetched ideas of how police work is actually conducted.
in Houck). Jurors who are influenced by the CSI Effect tend to have biased opinions because CSI shows are the basis for their knowledge. Rather than simply acknowledging courtroom expectations by deliberating based on only the facts presented in the courtroom, jurors are asking for more evidence than that is provided or necessary because jurors are comparing forensic evidence used to convict on television to real life cases. Thus, jurors are not impartial to the case because they have a prenotion of what information they require to convict, such as fingerprints in burglaries and blood analysis in murder cases. Smith et all reports that viewers of CSI-type shows and other similar shows have “inflated perceptions of accuracy, reliability, and usefulness of forensic evidence (but not ‘nonscientific’ evidence)” (qtd. in Stinson et all). As CSI-type shows emphasize the collection, analysis, and presentation of forensic evidence during court proceedings more so than other types of
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
According to the American academy of forensic science, the forensic sciences form a vital part if the entire justice and regulatory system. Forensic science is an enticing career having to do with science and criminal justice, a large variety of schooling is needed to start this job Despite the fact that it can be a dangerous environment it can be an exciting profession to pursue. There are many different fields in forensic science that you can study or major in but they all have the same objectives.
“The word ‘forensics’ means “connected with the courtroom”; so forensic science is, therefore, concerned with gathering hard evidence that can be presented in a trial” (Innes 9). Forensic science is a science that is applied specifically to legal matters, whether criminal or civil. “Few areas in the realm of science are as widespread and important as forensic science” (Hunter 12). Forensics is the one science that is most commonly used in everyday life. It is also a branch of science that incorporates other branches of science such as biology, chemistry, and etc. Since it is used almost every day “No one can dispute the importance of the contributions to society made by forensic science; the ability to solve crime is undeniably important” (Hunter 13). Forensic science has given criminal investigation a new edge. “Advances in science have opened the door for more effective evidence discovery, howev...