There has been numerous cop or court shows on TV such as Perry Mason, but at the end of 2000 CBS aired, first of its kind, crime drama show called CSI. The show started out showing a murder occurring and the crime scene investigators discussing the case. The show proceeds to show the problems the investigators face and the techniques they are going to use to solve the case. Millions of people tuned in to the hour long show to watch Grissom and the other investigators solve crimes by using sophisticated machines like a mass spectrometer and comparison microscopes etc. Each of the characters specialized in different areas of science such as blood spatter analyst, audio video expert, hair/fiber expert, and material/element analyst.
The “CSI effect” was coined after this show, because people who watch it began to think they were educated in the different forensic sciences. Jurors began to look for scientific evidence in trials to make their decision of innocence or guilt (Shelton, 2008). The jurors believe that without this evidence they are unable to come to a definitive conclusion of guilt. In a 2006 survey of potential jurors done by Gregg Barak, Ph.D., and Young Kim, Ph.D., criminology professors at Eastern Michigan University, and Honorable Donald E. Shelton found that jurors do expect some type of scientific evidence from the prosecution. The jurors were able to say they wanted certain evidence with specific crimes; such as a rape or murder they want DNA (2008). Shelton states the survey concluded that “jurors were more likely to find a defendant guilty than not guilty even without scientific evidence if the victim or other witnesses testified” (2008).
The idea that juries are expecting more proof of guilt from the lawyers is ...
... middle of paper ...
... any fingerprints or swabs for DNA; the most they did was ask people if they saw anything. I felt like because it was a bad area they were not giving me the same respect they would for someone else in a different area. The items stolen-food- was not important enough for them to fully investigate; to someone on food stamps like I was at the time was a big deal.
Works Cited
Catalani, R. (2006, January 31). A CSI Writer Defends His Show. Retrieved from The Yale Law Journal: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal-pocket-part/criminal-law-and-sentencing/a-csi-writer-defends-his-show/
Shelton, D. (2008, March 17). The CSI Effect: Does it Really Exist? Retrieved from National Institute of Justice: http://www.nij.gov/journals/259/Pages/csi-effect.aspx
Unknown. (n.d.). Know the Cases. Retrieved from Innocence Project: http://www.innocenceproject.org/about/
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
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
...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.
Garrett, Brandon. Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2011. 86. Print.
Mancini, Dante E. "The "CSI Effect" In An Actual Juror Sample: Why Crime Show Genre May
...rrod. Emotions and Culpability: How the law is at odds with psychology, Jurors, and itself. Washington: American Psychological Association, 2006. Print.
In conclusion, as shown throughout this paper, evidence is needed to convince jurors to give a verdict of guilt or not guilt. Evidence comes in several forms such as physical evidence, substantial evidence. When evidence is presented, it acceptance in trial depends on relevant to the case to be admissible. “Relevance refers to any material fact or evidence having a tendency to make the existence of a matter at issue more probable than it would be without said fact (probative value)”(Britz, 2008, p. 344).
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,
...T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of retrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1215-1226.
This paper explores deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) collection and its relationship to solving crimes. The collection of DNA is one of the most important steps in identifying a suspect in a crime. DNA evidence can either convict or exonerate an individual of a crime. Furthermore, the accuracy of forensic identification of evidence has the possibility of leaving biased effects on a juror (Carrell, Krauss, Liberman, Miethe, 2008). This paper examines Carrells et al’s research along with three other research articles to review how DNA is collected, the effects that is has on a juror and the pros and cons of DNA collection in the Forensic Science and Criminal Justice community.
Wilson, James Q. "Crime and Justice." JSTOR. The University of Chicago Press, 1990. Web. 11 Apr. 2014. .
Rosen, Lawrence. “The Creation of the Uniform Crime Report: The Role of Social Science.” JSTOR. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2011.
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.
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 the CSI field, CSI workers must be very accurate about details and properly collect different forms of data and evidence (Crime 1). CSI workers must be able to write forms