The CSI Effect is a term, purportedly coined by the media, to describe the effect forensic crime shows have on jury decisions. Some studies have indicated prosecution is being hindered by a jury’s unrealistic expectation of forensic evidence; the expectation that more physical evidence should be collected, tested and presented. According to Evan Durnal of the University of Central Missouri's Criminal Justice Department, “shows such as CSI put forth a perception that there is an ample amount of evidence left behind at every crime scene, as well as it being simple for scientists to find.” (Joomag) According to a 2010 article published in “The Economist,” Durnal has proven the effect is real by collecting evidence from numerous studies which show that exposure to forensic crime television shows has altered the American legal system in dramatic ways. (Economist) …show more content…
Donald Shelton, the chief judge of Washtenaw County, Mich., has expressed his skepticism. He noticed that reports about the CSI Effect were “long on anecdote and short on data.” So Shelton and his colleagues developed their own study. (NPR Study) After surveying more than 2,000 jurors and making comparisons based on the data collected, they could find no empirical evidence to support prosecutors’ claims. What they discovered is that jurors do expect to see scientific evidence in murder cases, but their expectations have nothing to do with the television viewing habits. They're more likely to be affected by the technology in their own pocket. Shelton's study showed that owning the latest smartphone has much bigger impact on how jurors evaluate scientific evidence. (NPR
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.
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 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 public opinion of government trustworthiness. Studies have not been able to clearly define if the CSI effect has had an actual influence on the outcome of trials. However surveys indicate many possible jurors believe they are more knowledgeable about criminology after watching the shows. CSI viewers may become more knowledgeable about forensic science and investigation processes but that knowledge does not affect the outcome of the criminal justice process.
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.
In Richards Willing’s “CSI effect” the author tells the reader how, as a result of crime scene shows’ popularity, the misconceptions they create, and the combining of real life events with TV fantasy, crime scene shows have affected jurors and the oucomes of court cases. The shows’ popularity has increased peoples’ interest in forensic science and has caused workers and students to transfer into the field. The second effect crime scenes created is the misconception concerning when to use forensic tests, as well as misconceptions about the speed and accuracy of forensic workers and machines in tracking and identifying the culprit. Willing tells of a murder trial in Arizona in which the defendant’s bloody coat was listed as evidence, but was not tested. Although the defendant had already told investigators that he was at the scene of the crime, with the jacket, jurors asked for forensic DNA evidence linking the defendant to the bloody coat and to the crime scene. The juror’s exposure to crime scene shows had given them knowledge of forensic tests, but not knowledge of the proper use of the tests. Crime scene shows mix real life with TV fantasy. According to willing’s studies, highly attractive forensic workers and stunning suspects, along with very neat crime scenes on crime scene shows deemphasize the real life violence and brutality of crime. Similarly, tv reality shows have influenced people’s ideas about real life and real relationships through the effects of image, misleading information, and popularity.
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.
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,
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
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
Forensic Science, recognized as Forensics, is the solicitation of science to law to understand evidences for crime investigation. Forensic scientists are investigators that collect evidences at the crime scene and analyse it uses technology to reveal scientific evidence in a range of fields. Physical evidence are included things that can be seen, whether with the naked eye or through the use of magnification or other analytical tools. Some of this evidence is categorized as impression evidence2.In this report I’ll determine the areas of forensic science that are relevant to particular investigation and setting out in what method the forensic science procedures I have recognized that would be useful for the particular crime scene.
CSIs must photograph/sketch crime scenes, take measurements, make observations, testify against criminals in court, and collect, pack, label, document, and analyze evidence (Career Cruising). All of these tasks CSIs must complete, require them to handle a variety of tools including: cameras, tripods, flashlights, notepads, utensils to collect physical evidence, measuring tapes, rulers, microscopes, fingerprinting kits, and even guns in some cases (Career Cruising). CSI agents collect to different types of evidence, when they investigate a crime (Byrd). The first type of evidence is testimonial evidence, which is the answers CSIs questioning suspects and witnesses are given (Byrd). Physical evidence, which is the other type of evidence, is any type of three-dimensional evidence collected at a crime scene (Byrd). Although different CSI teams from different areas of the world can consist of multiple branches, including: detectives, technicians, medical examiners, scientists, and lab analysts, they still use forensics, which is science and technology, to investigate crimes (Zullo). There is always crime, but when there are no current cases; CSIs go back to old/previous cases (McFadden).
The media has created the representation that criminal procedures contemplate juries and forensic science. The CSI-Effect was created through the evolution of the popular crime dramas CSI, NCIS, Bones, Law and Order, and Criminal Minds. The false of perception through these hit TV-shows are the result for the increase of criminal crime and criminal justice careers. It has been proven that people from the younger age have been the most influenced by these shows. These shows have been oversimplified, exaggerated, and glamorized which lead into a negative effect in society. The CSI Effect has been defined in three major ways. The first definition expresses that CSI makes irrational expectations on the part of jurors, making it harder for prosecutors
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
Collecting evidence from a crime scene is a crucial aspect of solving crimes. Before evidence can be seized, there must first be a court order approving the search of the crime scene and the seizure of the evidence found at the scene. Standard protocol for officers is for them to always use latex gloves, avoid plastic bags, double wrap small objects, package each object separately, and to collect as much evidence as possible. It is better to have too much evidence than to not have enough. There are countless amounts of evidence that can be found at a crime scene.