Why do true crime television dramas such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and Law and Order garner such a cult following? To put it simply, these shows reveal provocative, firsthand stories that give audiences privileged glimpses into a criminal justice system that is often difficult to comprehend. Viewers are drawn to the idea of being at home jurors, personally being able to solve and dissect cases along with the investigators on TV. But how well do these mini investigators translate into an actual judicial proceeding? Though the entertainment value of these crime dramas may be viewed as harmless, the effects of these programs transmit undo biases and vast misinterpretations of the legal system onto juries and individual jurors of court proceedings. …show more content…
In true crime dramas, the criminologists often rely heavily on the use of forensic science to solve murder cases. Sometimes, however, these shows exacerbate the true limitations that science has on criminal justice. For example, in an episode of NCIS: Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the criminologists are investigating a murder at a skating rink. The skating rink had ultraviolet lights, and when they were turned on, a long fluorescent blood trail appeared on the surface of the ice. According to Robert Shaler, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Penn State University, “There is a way to make blood fluoresce, but you have to spray it with a chemical first. On its own, blood doesn’t fluoresce under ultraviolet light” (PennState). However, this information presented as actual science in these crime shows create a false sense of expertise within casual viewers. Dubbed as the “CSI Effect”, jurors begin to believe that forensic evidence is the only credible source of information in convicting people of crimes. According to Evan Durnal of the University of Central Missouri’s Criminal Justice Department, he claims to
As one of the seven jury deliberations documented and recorded in the ABC News television series In the Jury Room the discussions of the jurors were able to be seen throughout the United States. A transcript was also created by ABC News for the public as well. The emotions and interactions of the jurors were now capable of being portrayed to anyone interested in the interworkings of jury deliberations. The first task,...
Jurors have unrealistic ideas of evidence processing. ”Such programs give the impression that forensic laboratories are fully staffed with highly trained personnel, stocked with a full complement of state-of-the-art instrumentation and rolling in the resources to close every case in a timely fashion.” (Houck 85) Forensic laboratories face funding deficits, not enough suitably trained staff and the consistent advancement of technology. University of Maryland forensic scientist Thomas Mauriello estimates that about 40 percent of the forensic science shown on CSI does not exist. Carol Henderson, director of the National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law at Stetson University College of Law, told a publication of that institution that jurors are “sometimes disappointed if some of the new technologies that they think exist are not used.” (Houck 87) Investigators often have to explain to victims that it is not possible to collect a sample of...
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 Richards Willing’s “CSI effect” the author tells the reader how, as a result of crime scene shows’ popularity, the misconceptions they create, and the combining of real life events with TV fantasy, crime scene shows have affected jurors and the oucomes of court cases. The shows’ popularity has increased peoples’ interest in forensic science and has caused workers and students to transfer into the field. The second effect crime scenes created is the misconception concerning when to use forensic tests, as well as misconceptions about the speed and accuracy of forensic workers and machines in tracking and identifying the culprit. Willing tells of a murder trial in Arizona in which the defendant’s bloody coat was listed as evidence, but was not tested. Although the defendant had already told investigators that he was at the scene of the crime, with the jacket, jurors asked for forensic DNA evidence linking the defendant to the bloody coat and to the crime scene. The juror’s exposure to crime scene shows had given them knowledge of forensic tests, but not knowledge of the proper use of the tests. Crime scene shows mix real life with TV fantasy. According to willing’s studies, highly attractive forensic workers and stunning suspects, along with very neat crime scenes on crime scene shows deemphasize the real life violence and brutality of crime. Similarly, tv reality shows have influenced people’s ideas about real life and real relationships through the effects of image, misleading information, and popularity.
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,
The social construction of myths of crime and criminal justice seems to follow a series of recurrent patterns. These patterns allow for an unprecedented amount of social attention to be focused upon a few isolated criminal events or issues. This attention is promoted by intense, but often brief, mass media coverage of a select problem. Intense social concern of an issue is achieved by a variety of means from the mass media, government, law enforcement officials, interpersonal communications, and the interests of reform groups whom all play major roles in focusing the publics attention on select so...
Shelton, I can see how watching CSI might affect a trial outcome. If jurors watch CSI they want to have CSI style evidence, and if they don’t have this type of evidence they might be more likely to acquit the defendant. “There was scant evidence in our survey results that CSI viewers were either more or less likely to acquit defendants without scientific evidence. Only 4 of 13 scenarios showed somewhat significant differences between viewers and non-viewers on this issue, and they were inconsistent.” It is very unlikely that if you watch a lot of CSI you will find the defendant not guilty. If you are a Light CSI viewer you are more likely to be influenced by the CSI effect. “For all categories of evidence—both scientific and nonscientific—CSI viewers (those who watch CSI on occasion, often, or regularly) generally had higher expectations than non-CSI viewers (those who never or almost never watch the program). But, it is possible that the CSI viewers may have been better-informed jurors than the non-CSI viewers. The CSI viewers had higher expectations about scientific evidence that was more likely to be relevant to a particular crime than did the non-CSI viewers. The CSI viewers also had lower expectations about evidence that was less likely to be relevant to a particular crime than did the non-CSI viewers.” (Shelton,
The general public of Australia has a common aspect when associated with their sources of knowledge of crime. Many would agree the media, especially newspapers and television, are their most frequent and well known source of crime activity. The media updates society with data about the extent, frequency and types of crimes committed (Moston and Coventry, 2011, p.53). Studies highlight our grasp of crime is majorly derived from the media, with a lack of exposure to police statistics or victimisation surveys. There is a concern in correlation to this fact since the media has inconsistency and inaccuracy in reporting crime. Due to this, the media can misrepresent victims and perpetrators, downsizing them to recognisable stereotypes (Moston and
People want to witness the truth and the crime and do not want to see what actually did not happen. Director of the Master of Criminal Justice Program, Katherine Ramsland, believes that mainstream audiences are obsessed with true crime for numerous reasons; “people gawk at terrible things to reassure themselves that they are safe; and most true crimes on TV… are offered as a puzzle that people want to solve. This gives them a sense of closure. It is also a challenge that stimulates the brain.” While the genre has not experienced any dire changes, there have been ways that formed true crime into a contemporary form. For instance, lack of trust within organizations, enhanced technology and new forms of media.
Tyler, Tom R. “Viewing CSI and the Threshold of Guilt: Managing truth and Justice in Reality
The media, both in the mainstream and alternative sources, determine how the community view crime and how it represents the victims of crime, criminals and law enforcement officials. Media organisations have arguably become the main source of news, entertainment, recreation, and product information in society. For many people, media outlets such as newspapers, magazines, social media and television broadcasts informs viewers about events that affect their everyday lives. This essay it will explore the many variations of how crime is mispresented to society through mass media organisations.
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
Throughout society there are both individuals and groups of people with a wide range of perceptions about crime and justice. These perceptions are influenced by the media and what the media presents. Media presents crime stories in ways that selectively distort and manipulate public perception, thus creating a false picture of crime. Therefore the media provides us with perceptions and social constructions about our world. Firstly I will be discussing the role of the media in constructing knowledge about crime. I will begin by explaining why the media is important, and go further to explain that media representations construct knowledge of crime and since knowledge about crime is constructed it does not necessarily capture reality in fact crime stories are often sensationalised. I will then link this to my central argument that the media shapes people’s perceptions of crime and how this is important as it can lead to changes in the law. I will then explain what it is that the public or society needs to be aware of when reading and watching media reports about crime. We need to be aware of bias and moral panics that are created by the media and how the media shapes or influence’s public perception through this, it is important for us to be aware of misleading or false crime stories so that we are not swayed by the media in believing what they want us to believe.
The media today is often taken for granted; as people don’t realize the dominance the media source holds in the modern world. Through media sources such as newspaper, TV and social media crime could be easily spread through out the world within seconds. As a result of this, humans understanding of crime and crime control are largely relied upon the media as evidently most people will not be in those serious criminal situations. The media however takes advantage of this situation by exaggerating crime scenes and focusing on particular crimes to make the public fear. Particular groups in the media are stereotyped to an extent where the public foresees then as ‘dangerous’. As a consequence, a change in the public’s perception of crime has forced
Television has seen plenty of producers, writers and viewers attracted to crime and deviance. The crime drama series is not an unchanging structure but develops in an intricate relationship with audiences, media institutions, social contexts and other genres. Crime drama series’ structure often begins with some strains to the social order by criminal forces. Historically police officers or “cops” are good and the criminals are bad. However today we can notice “bent” cops and sometimes sympathetic villains.