Introduction. 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. 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. Forensics in Pop Culture. What exactly are these shows that are causing so much controversy in the criminal justice and forensic science fields? The more well known CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, reeling in almos... ... middle of paper ... ...06): 84-89. Michael D. Mann, Comment, “The 'CSI Effect': Better Jurors through Television and Science?,” 24 Buff. Pub. Int. L. 211 (2006) Roane, Kit R. “The CSI Effect: On TV, It's All slam-dunk evidence evidence and Quick Convictions. Now Juries Expect the Same Thing – and That's a Big Problem.” U.S. News & World Report (2005) Shelton, Hon, et al. “ Study of Juror Expectations and Demands Concerning Scientific Evidence: Does the 'CSI Effect' Exist?.” Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law 9.2 (2007): 331-368 Stevens, Dennis J. “ Forensic Science, Wrongful Convictions, and American Prosecutor Discretion.” Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 47.1 (2008): 31-51. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Feb. 2014. Tyler, Tom R. “Viewing CSI and the Threshold of Guilt: Managing truth and Justice in Reality and Fiction.” The Yale Law Journal (2006): 1050-1085
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 order to incriminate Danial Williams, Joseph Dick, Eric Wilson, and Derek Tice with the rape and murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko, Detectives Maureen Evans and Robert Ford conducted long, grueling interrogation sessions using many provocative and manipulative tactics. Throughout this process, Ford and Evans coerced the suspects into renegotiating their perception of the crime until an entirely new reality was created. This new reality evolved as the police elicited additional confessionary evidence to account for each new piece of physical evidence from the crime scene. Eventually, in an iterative process that had police editing their theories of the crime and then forcing the suspects to claim this new reality as their own, the reconciled reality of the crime became one that was consistent with both the criminal evidence and the suspects’ new perception. An analysis of empirical m...
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.
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.
With a record of an average 119 television channels available to each household, television dominates American life (MediaBuyerPlanner). This wide assortment of television gives viewers many different realities to imitate, like a small child following and obeying its parent. One of the leading television shows in our society is the CSI franchise, with three different extensions. CSI, and shows similar to it, portray the criminal justice system in a negative light, which causes confusion between reality and fiction. Television is a means of entertainment, yet its influence on today’s generation is powerful and enchanting. Television shows centered on criminal justice are implausible portrayals of reality that create unrealistic expectations of evidence in the courtroom, as well as creating superfluous fear of murder for the viewers.
Viewing a judge's sentence creates a divide in society. Will the accused be offered a fair trial? Could t...
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
Every day, hundreds of law enforcement officers go out to investigate crimes, whether it is a robbery, a car accident, a suicide, or even a homicide. But has civilization ever stopped to wonder who those behind – the - scene guys are that put all the pieces of evidence together but do not really receive credit for it or the amount of training that goes into becoming a forensic scientist? How about if the forensic science strategies depicted on TV is actually true. Society can give credit to the thousands of forensic scientists who spend their days deciphering evidence ,which is not as dazzling and fantastic as TV plays it out to be. In fact, most of the things portrayed on TV are actually false. Although the forensic science strategies used in the TV shows seem amazing, they are not representative of the real profession and people should realize there is a huge difference between fiction and the real work done. This research paper debates the technology of forensic science, the training involved, the careers that are associated with the field and also how this topic is presented in film.
In the criminal justice field, many studies are focused on the effects of media’s portrayal of crime. The definition of media has included TV news, TV dramas (Law and Order,NCIS, etc), and newspapers. Chiricos. Padgett, and Gertz (2011) and Romer, Hall Jamieson, and Aday (2003) included local versus national TV news watching in their study. Both studies found that increase in viewership of news media increased fear of crime. One found that local news had more of an influence on fear of crime than national news (Chiricos, Padgett, & Gertz, 2000).
In a world filled with criminal shows on television, it is difficult to get an accurate idea of what it truly means to be a police officer or a detective. It seems easier to absorb the analysis they present and simultaneously solve the case; however, is that truly how it works? Criminal Minds is one of the most popular shows on television today. This is due to the way it portrays the FBI in their endless search for villains unfound and rampant. Law and Order portrays the entire process of find, justifying, and incriminating offenders. Another show similar to Law and order is 24. 24 goes through an entire day in one, twenty-four episode, season. It does this in great detail to show the audience how they arrived at conclusion of who was guilty.
This has, however, been recently challenged as greater research has been conducted. According to Schweitzer and Saks (2007) “CSI viewers were more critical of the forensic evidence presented at the trial, finding it less believable” whilst also “express[ing] more confidence in their verdicts than non-viewers”, but later go on to state that “viewers of general crime programs ... did not differ significantly from their non-viewing counterparts … suggesting that skepticism toward the forensic science testimony was specific to those whose diet consisted of heavy doses of forensic science television programs”. Professor Tom R. Tyler is quoted in Schweitzer and Saks (2007) stating that “no existing empirical research shows that [the CSI effect] actually occurs”. This stance is similarly mirrored in other research papers on the topic, including Tyler (2006) which states that “there is no direct research evidence that watching CSI has changed juror standards of reasonable doubt.” Baskin and Sommers (2010) further suggest that the personality characteristics of jurors, such as authoritarianism and narcissism, ease of being influenced, and
Quinsey, V. (2009). Are we there yet? stasis and progress in forensic psychology. Canadian Psychology, 50(1), 15-15-21.
Fairchild, H. & Cowan, G (1997). Journal of Social Issues. The O.J. Simpson Trial: Challenges to Science and Society.
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.
Television has seen plenty of producers, writers and viewers attracted to crime and deviance. The crime drama series is not an unchanging structure but develops in an intricate relationship with audiences, media institutions, social contexts and other genres. Crime drama series’ structure often begins with some strains to the social order by criminal forces. Historically police officers or “cops” are good and the criminals are bad. However today we can notice “bent” cops and sometimes sympathetic villains.