Introduction
“According to one 2006 weekly Nielsen rating, 30 million people watched CSI on one night, 70 million people watched at least one of the three CSI shows, and over 40 million watched two other forensic dramas.” (Shelton, 2008) Crime TV shows have become extremely popular, 7 of the top 10 TV shoes of 2013 where crime investigation genre shows.
The topic that I chose to research was to do a content analysis. I watched six episodes of CSI:NY and will discuss my findings on what is fiction and what is real in CSI:NY. I will also discuss the CSI effect and how it can influence a jury trial, and its positive and negative effect on the criminal justice system. The sources of the information for my research will come from the course content
…show more content…
from week 10b on the CSI effect, and the article “The 'CSI Effect': Does It Really Exist?” By Donald E. Shelton. Methodology I conducted my content analysis by watching six TV episodes from season one of CSI: NY. The episodes that I watched were “Blink”, “Creatures Of The Night”, “American Dreamers”, “Grand Master”, ” A Man A Mile”, and “Outside Man”. As I conducted my research I took notes on the content that I was viewing to help document what I observed watching CSI: NY. I viewed the first three episodes from 3pm to 6pm on Saturday November 5, 2016 in my dorm room in Mankato, Minnesota. I then viewed the last three Saturday November 12, 2016 from 2pm to 5pm in the same location. Results After watching six episodes of CSI:NY, I noticed a lot of things that are fake and wrong in each of the episodes. The first thing that I noticed that was wrong in CSI:NY is they always had enough forensic evidence to establish corpus delicti. The DNA evidence or other forensic evidence, such as a blood sample or fingerprint, was perfect and intact and an exact match to the suspect at hand. Then the labs have all of the right expensive scientific equipment, and there is nothing else going on in the lab other than the murder at hand, so it only takes a matter of minutes to test the DNA and fingerprint evidence. Another interesting fact that I observed is that in five out of the six episodes the victim was murdered, and in only one the victims was raped. This goes along with the course content from week 10b that states 66 percent of the TV crime offenses involve a murder and 6 percent are rape victims. In the CSI:NY episode “A Man A Mile” someone intentionally sets off an explosion in a tunnel for water pipes and it kills the victim. They find the victim’s ring with a perfect fingerprint on it along with a bit of blood on it from the suspect so they are able to get their suspect. From the course content of week 10b DNA, I learned it is hard to find a complete fingerprint. They can be covered, smudged, or distorted. Fingerprints also become more difficult to scan with age. The matching procedure is subject to error, and not all offenders have been fingerprinted. Not every crime scene is cooperative. In real life, evidence is hard to attain, and it is not quickly and easily tested. But in the CSI episode “Creatures of the Night” they were able to immediately test tree sap on a suspect’s pants and find out which tree in the park it came from with some sort of park scanning program. Then they tested a semen sample and found that it had no sperm but they were able to test a sample from the gardener and found out that he had no sperm in his semen, and had the tree sap on his pant leg. They were able to get back positive results in just minutes when in reality it could take months or even a year to get the results back from the lab. From the course content 10b it takes an average of 106 days for a DNA lab to get results from a sample. Also only 10 percent of real murder cases actually use DNA or fingerprint evidence. Another mistake in CSI:NY “Creatures of the Night” was a piece of made-up equipment.
They had a special earth metal scanner gun that they were able to point at a rat and see if it had the lead bullet that it had swallowed. In a lab there are most likely large, no portable, extremely expensive tools that can scan and determine a certain metal, but a portable gun that can be used to find a specific metal is highly unlikely and would be extremely expensive. From week 10b I learned that only 60 percent of the tools and equipment used in the show have actually been invented. If the equipment does exist it is often very expensive and the crime scene agencies don’t have access to it due to lack of funding and the space to house the …show more content…
equipment. Conclusion After completing the content analysis and reading the article on “The 'CSI Effect': Does It Really Exist?” By Donald E.
Shelton, I can see how watching CSI might affect a trial outcome. If jurors watch CSI they want to have CSI style evidence, and if they don’t have this type of evidence they might be more likely to acquit the defendant. “There was scant evidence in our survey results that CSI viewers were either more or less likely to acquit defendants without scientific evidence. Only 4 of 13 scenarios showed somewhat significant differences between viewers and non-viewers on this issue, and they were inconsistent.” It is very unlikely that if you watch a lot of CSI you will find the defendant not guilty. If you are a Light CSI viewer you are more likely to be influenced by the CSI effect. “For all categories of evidence—both scientific and nonscientific—CSI viewers (those who watch CSI on occasion, often, or regularly) generally had higher expectations than non-CSI viewers (those who never or almost never watch the program). But, it is possible that the CSI viewers may have been better-informed jurors than the non-CSI viewers. The CSI viewers had higher expectations about scientific evidence that was more likely to be relevant to a particular crime than did the non-CSI viewers. The CSI viewers also had lower expectations about evidence that was less likely to be relevant to a particular crime than did the non-CSI viewers.” (Shelton,
2008) A reason for this is that if you are a heavy watcher you are very interested in this scientific field and will have done more research and have a better understanding of what is real and what is fake. If you are a light watcher like myself you might be more inclined to expect some sort of CSI style evidence in a case. From the course content of week 10b, 55 percent of light watchers would be likely not to give a guilty verdict, but only 41 percent of the heavy watchers would be likely not to give a guilty verdict. As mentioned before, even if there was some of the CSI style evidence available for the jury at a trial it would be extremely expensive and time consuming to retrieve from the crime seen. There are also some positive CSI effects. Above Shelton mentions that the jurors that watch CSI can be more informed about what is valuable evidence and what is not. Other positive CSI effects include a greater awareness of the criminal justice system, a stronger sense of justice, and a desire for closure of a criminal case. Overall, the misinformation that viewers get from watching CSI has a very small negative effect on the criminal justice system and the outcome of a jury trial, while there is also a small positive effect.
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
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
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 cases, influencing a juror's perception of what should realistically be going on with acquittal rates and wrongful convictions, but researchers have also started to find a rising fault in the prosecution, using this false perception to their advantage.
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation was introduced to viewers in October 2000. Since that time, the franchise has added two versions in major metropolitan areas, now addressing crime scenarios in Las Vegas, Miami and New York City. Based on the most recent Nielsen ratings for primetime television shows, the CSI franchise claimed approximately 35 million viewers during the 2010 – 2011 viewing season. The popularity of forensic science drama on television has led officers of the court to voice opinions that there is a “CSI effect” which alters the juror pools and outcomes of criminal trial proceedings. The differences between made for television fiction and actual crime solving are many and when jurors consider themselves pseudo-experts those lines may get blurred in the courtroom.
Specifically, crime shows have given us, the TV audience as a whole, scripts or an expectation of what will/should happen in a variety of situations. It leads people to think about what is appropriate and what isn’t in terms of how the results of these situations play out. For example, in the CSI franchise, as the plot unfolds in each episode, it takes forensic evidence, such as DNA or fingerprints, to convict the villain. Before the technological breakthroughs made in the fields of biology and forensics, juries relied more on circumstantial evidence, and eyewitness accounts to prove someone was guilty. This is just one example of how crime shows have changed the general representations of what is the “correct” way to solve a crime.
A synthesis essay should be organized so that others can understand the sources and evaluate your comprehension of them and their presentation of specific data, themes, etc.
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.
Criminal Justice School Guide (CJSG). "The CSI Effect- Do TV Series Skew Our Perceptions of Forensic
Media portrayal of crime and criminal justice has become incredibly widespread in the last decade, with crime often considered both a source of news and entertainment. As a source of entertainment, crime and criminal justice have emerged as central themes across various sources of media. Most individuals do not have any direct experience with the criminal justice system, so their only source of information on this topic is the media. Particularly in television shows, portrayals of crime and criminal justice can be seen in everything from courtroom dramas to nightly news programs. Indeed, the popularity of crime shows has lead to some of television’s most enduring series, such as Law and Order and CSI. Because of this, fictional
As realized, the criminal justice system has been utilized as entertainment for a while. It all started with ‘America’s most wanted ' that once featured John Walsh in search of lost children and renegades from justice. The program merged accurate details with a theatrical description of the crime in question. Not merely was the program educational, but it was enjoyable as well. In 1989, entertainment aspect of Criminal justice as continued with the debut of ``COPS, a program that pursued police officers throughout their shift and exhibited how they hunted down wrongdoers, pursued them if needed and apprehended them. At present, there are numerous fact-oriented shows on the TV, and each describes a different aspect of the criminal justice system.
The media is a dominating aspect of American culture. The way the media depicts crime and criminal behavior has an effect on the way society views crime and criminals. Television series such as CSI, NCIS, Law and Order, Criminal Minds and countless others, have become very popular in our society today showing that our culture has an immense interest in crime. It is clear that there is a fascination with criminals and why they do the things they do. To analyze the way crime dramas represent crime and criminal behavior, I completed a content analysis of one episode of Criminal Minds. The episode I chose was season one; episode eight, which first aired in 2005, titled ‘Natural Born Killer’.
Television has affected every aspect of life in society, radically changing the way individuals live and interact with the world. However, change is not always for the better, especially the influence of television on political campaigns towards presidency. Since the 1960s, presidential elections in the United States were greatly impacted by television, yet the impact has not been positive. Television allowed the public to have more access to information and gained reassurance to which candidate they chose to vote for. However, the media failed to recognize the importance of elections. Candidates became image based rather than issue based using a “celebrity system” to concern the public with subjects regarding debates (Hart and Trice). Due to “hyperfamiliarity” television turned numerous people away from being interested in debates between candidates (Hart and Trice). Although television had the ability to reach a greater number of people than it did before the Nixon/Kennedy debate, it shortened the attention span of the public, which made the overall process of elections unfair, due to the emphasis on image rather than issue.
This is owing to the reason that the CSI series had created a probability to generate unreasonable anticipations on behalf of the jurors, proving science as the most reliable source of evidence, as the forensic crime dramas broadcasted on the televisions simultaneously raise interest amid the viewers in the domain of forensic science (Kopacki, 2013). The crime dramas telecasted in American televisions have preserved an outstanding role for the preceding 50 years, which can be stated apparently with reference to the CSI series. These dramas shown in distinct forms certainly act as one of the fundamental techniques through which the average people can learn about the mechanism of criminal justice with rudimental details. Observably, the impacts of CSI to a law enforcement agency can be as assessed in terms of forming, developing and maintaining effective communication with the viewers and facilitating them to identify social reality (Hughes & Magers,
The show CSI first appeared in the early 2000s and gained major popularity. Over time the show increased the expectations of viewers. The biggest expectations were the abilities of the crime scene investigators to always provide proof of evidence, as well as their methods used in gaining results from that evidence. Legal specialists anticipated the effects the show would have on the views of the legal system and how it would affect the juror process. This development is now referred to as the “CSI Effect” (Shelton, 2007). This effect explains that jurors were making decisions based off of what they saw on TV. This paper will analyze a specific episode of the show CSI: Miami. To be analyzed are the realistic and non-realistic actions taken
Joseph Straubhaar (2009) stated that television genres continue to develop over time in response to changes in audience tastes and original creative ideas. Indeed, television genres will keep on developing to meet the expectations and satisfaction of the audience. Crime drama series have become one of the most popular television genres within our society. It attracts the audience by dealing with themes and issues relating to the news and current affairs that the viewers are aware of. Crime fiction has various sub-genres including detective fiction such as Monk (2002-2009) where a detective investigates and solves a crime. Furthermore, Law & Order (1990-2010) represents the legal thriller and courtroom drama sub-genres as these crime dramas focus more on the struggles of the law and deal with many criminals such as rapists, murderers etc...and the strain of defending the innocent people.