CSI Synthesis Essay

Specifically, crime shows have given us, the TV audience as a whole, scripts or an expectation of what will/should happen in a variety of situations. It leads people to think about what is appropriate and what isn’t in terms of how the results of these situations play out. For example, in the CSI franchise, as the plot unfolds in each episode, it takes forensic evidence, such as DNA or fingerprints, to convict the villain. Before the technological breakthroughs made in the fields of biology and forensics, juries relied more on circumstantial evidence, and eyewitness accounts to prove someone was guilty. This is just one example of how crime shows have changed the general representations of what is the “correct” way to solve a crime.

Audience

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