The CSI Effect is the idea that criminal shows and movies give viewers an inaccurate representation of forensic evidence and how it is used. If the CSI Effect is a confounding variable in this study, we can control for it by not letting the participants know the true meaning of the study until debriefing. It has also been found that not every crime drama talks about forensic evidence (Rhineberger-Dunn, Briggs, Rader, 2017). If not every crime drama talks about forensic evidence there is a chance that the drama the participants may watch does not talk about forensic evidence. If the participant watches a crime show that is about the FBI than they are less likely to have seen forensic evidence in that show (Rhineberger-Dunn, Briggs, Rader, 2017). This also helps control this confound. Though the CSI Effect and some of these studies are not directly related to the study being proposed, they do explore the various types of evidence that can be used in criminal cases. They also explore topics related to forensic evidence and their uses in popular social media outlets, because of this they are worth
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
Hundreds across the nation watch forensic shows every day. From fictional shows similar to Criminal Minds and CSI, to nonfictional shows such as The First 48 and Forensic Files. However, these shows have something in common. Criminological programs continuously show how the crime happened, what it takes to crack the case, how investigators accumulate evidence, a...
The procedures depicted of the criminal justice system on television are complex, inaccurate, and implausible portrayals of what actually occurs. These shows do not show the planning, timing, and effort that is put into the maintenance of a crime scene. Investigators show up, take some photographs, and continue to the lab for results in a matter of minutes (Forensic Science Degree). Television leaves out the uneventful procedures that are essential in a real crime scene. They also neglect to show how much time is spent on each case, which can take months or even years to finish. There are many techniques and procedures which seem to be forgotten or simplified in the shows. Crime scenes require a variety of people, including the skills of photographers, sketch artists, evidence recorders, and other team members. Intricate notes and sketches of the crime scene give all of the details requ...
Forensic Science has contributed to our world a great deal. People often misunderstand Forensic Science and believe it is much more capable than it really is. As a matter of fact what you see on T.V. is around 80% false or over exaggerated in some way. To Start of, Criminal Investigation is the largest and most known form of Forensic Science. Some of the more known areas include; Fingerprinting, Ballistics, DNA Identification, Fiber Samples, Computer Animation, Documentation analysis, etc. To get this out of the way in the beginning, what you saw on last night’s law and order is far from the truth. Things they do in a matter of hours take months at a time, and most of the time aren’t even plausible concepts.
Every week more than 60 million Americans turn their television sets to tune to the popular crime investigation drama CSI: Crime Scene Investigation or one of its countless spin offs, which have become increasingly popular among the American public (Shelton, n.d.). The show has been a top rated drama since it was first aired in 2001, it has received several Emmy nominations, and many even claimed it has lead to the considerable increase in college students studying forensic science. Recently however, despite its many achievements several newspapers and magazine articles began warning about the impact the shows influence is having on our criminal justice system; they referred to the phenomenon as the CSI Effect. Max Houck, Director of the Forensic Science Initiative at West Virginia University, explains the CSI effect as “basically the perception of the near-infallibility of forensic science in response to the TV show” ( Podlas, 2010, p. 99). The concern among criminal justice experts and prosecutors is that the so called CSI effect creates unrealistic expectations that every case must be solved with high tech forensic tests, which they believe, has a significant impact on juror decision making. Exposure to the dramatized and fictional depiction of crime solving portrayed by these television shows has had a significant impact on viewer’s conception of reality, which has negatively altered the expectation of jurors and influenced jury verdicts.
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.
My interest in forensic science, both as a degree subject and as a career, developed, like most people's I imagine, out of my enjoyment of crime fiction, both in novels and films. Puzzles have always interested me and finding ways to solve mysteries gives me great satisfaction. When I began to conduct real life scientific experiments and analyses it soon became clear that the reality of the forensic scientist's job is quite unlike the fictional version, but still full of interest and intellectual variety. I have something of an aptitude for science and my thinking works in a rational and scientific manner, and I am attracted by the biological aspects of forensic science - analysing blood patterns and interpreting DNA - and by the chemistry of the subject, such things as drug analysis and examining paint, glass and fibre fragments. I am fully aware that much of the scientific work can be routine and yet new developments in the science have produced
Many people base their beliefs of forensic science off of what they see in the media, but that is far from reality. While forensic shows can be entertaining, one should not base their career choice off of it. Forensic science is not only used in criminal justice, but in everyday life as well, however lack of ethics, grueling work hours, poor working conditions, and psychological stress make the forensic sciences a daunting career path.
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 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
In the essay, The CSI Effect by Richard Willing, he explains how television shows have and are affecting todays people and society. One show in particular he mentions is the CBS crime-scene/drama series CSI (Crime Scene Investigation). Willing says that shows like CSI raises jurors’ expectations in courthouses. Some lawyers have said that CSI and related shows have jurors relying too heavily on scientific findings and are not willing to accept those findings without taking into consideration that it was compromised by varying errors. Jurors have learned a lot about DNA tests from these programs, but not taught about the right time to use one in court. This “CSI Effect” is felt beyond the courtroom as well. Some of the science is state-of-the-art
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
“Crime scene processing is a critical component in the resolution of crimes against persons and property, to include homicide, sexual assault, aggravated assault, robbery, and drug use” (Hunkeler, I). When searching the term fingerprints on Merriam-Webster, one finds numerous definitions for the term and learns that there are various types of fingerprinting. One classification reads that fingerprints are “an ink impression of the lines upon the fingertip taken for the purpose of identification” (Merriam-Webster). Another definition explains that fingerprints are “the base-pair pattern in an individual's DNA obtained by DNA fingerprinting” (Merriam-Webster). Both of these definitions provide a worthy understanding of fingerprinting, especially dealing with the crime scene aspect. Although it may seem that it is a fairly simple concept to understand, it is complex and takes time to learn and understand the different types and ways to gather and collect fingerprints.