CSI Evidence Essay

According to Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary, the CSI Effect, also known as the CSI Infection, is a phenomenon reported by prosecutors who claim that television shows based on scientific crime solving have made actual jurors reluctant to vote to convict when forensic evidence neither necessary nor available. CSI and several other shows in the “forensic crime genre” have been television’s most popular shows for over ten years. These shows mostly depict law enforcement using methods to solve crimes that are not available to them in real life. As a result, viewers have unrealistic expectations of law enforcement and the justice system. Now, this perspective of how law enforcement should act and how a trial should take place would not be a

One possibility is the pro-defense argument. (Hayes-Smith, Levett, 2001) The pro-defense argument states that if forensic evidence is absent, this absence may cause those jurors who watch crime dramas to be skeptical of testimony or other common trial evidence (Hayes-Smith, Levett, 2011). As a result, jurors will be more likely to not find the defendant guilty. Another possibility is the pro-prosecution argument. (Hayes-Smith, Levett, 2011) The pro-prosecution argument states that if forensic evidence is present, the jurors who watch crime dramas will focus solely on the forensic evidence and ignore other pieces of evidence. (Hayes-Smith, Levett, 2011) Therefore increasing the likelihood that the jurors will find the defendant

It was not until 2005 when scholars decided to find out if it really did exist and what influence did it have on society. Several empirical studies, in the form of juror surveys and hypothetical trial scenarios, have attempted to determine the existence of a CSI effect. (Feeler, 2014) None has showed any definitive results. Kimberlianne Podlas published the first study in 2006 and 2007. Podlas used two hypothetical cases in which the only pieces of evidence were the stories from the defendant and the complainant. Podlas separated graduate students, college students, and adults into three groups. The group that voted not guilty was asked to list the factors that influenced their verdict. (Feeler, 2014) The group that requested more forensic evidence was separated into smaller groups: those who watched forensic shows and those who did not. The results of the survey showed that those who watched forensic shows were no more likely to vote not guilty than those who do not watch forensic