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
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...
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.
Roane, Kit R. “The CSI Effect.” U.S. News & World Report. 25 April 2005. Web. 15 January 2014.
Viewing a judge's sentence creates a divide in society. Will the accused be offered a fair trial? Could t...
Stevens, Dennis J. Media and Criminal Justice: the CSI effect. Sadbury: Jones and Bartlett, 2011. 35-38. Print.
Forensic (criminal) psychology is a job field that deals with both psychology and law. The field has experienced dramatic growth in recent years due to the role of popular movies, television programs and books popularizing the field. Often these individuals are depicted as vivid components in solving vicious crimes or timing out a criminal’s next home. While these depictions of certainly entertaining, yet these portrayals are not necessarily precise. Forensic psychologists play an instrumental role in the criminal justice system while applying psychological principles to the legal system. The crossover of the two spheres is best decided in the Encyclopedia of Psychology,
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.
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.
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
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.
Forensic psychology is an area of psychology that has been rapidly gaining popularity in recent years. Entertainment media’s fascination with the intersection of crime and psychology has fueled the growing interest in the field. According to Jane Tyler Ward, PhD, forensic psychology can be defined as psychology that “emphasizes the application of research and experimentation in other areas of psychology to the legal arena.” Although forensic psychology is popular right now, it was not until 1962 that a court case set the precedent that properly trained psychologists could provide expert testimony (Page 20). Additionally, forensic psychology was not APA (American Psychological Association) certified until 2001 (Page 16). The field of forensic
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).
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
Perri, F., & Lichtenwald, T. (2009). WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE: Criminal investigative analysis, forensic psychology, and the timothy masters case. Forensic Examiner, 18(2), 52-52-69.