As many families around the world consume biased information from crime scene shows like 48 Hours Mystery, CSI, Castle, and Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, perception of what a court room trial is truly like is altered. When watching these television shows people grow opinions about crime scene investigations and how information is gathered; his or her ideas may become extreme based on what they have seen on television, it affects the way he or she might handle being a juror in a criminal case. Although crime investigation programs are for entertainment purposes only, juries have been influenced when deciding a verdict for a defendant, have had a tendency to hold high expectations for evidence within a case, and have assumed that all criminal investigations deal with high end technology.
While Americans watch crime scene investigation shows they are subconsciously comparing real life murder investigation to the fictional television version. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation is one of the most watched programs in the United States, causing uproar of the “CSI effect” in many court room trials. The CSI effect is, “the impact that viewing fictional criminal investigation shows like Crime Scene Investigation ("CSI") has upon jurors' real life decision-making processes” (Lawson). Not until 2005 did the CSI effect become a controversial issue in the United States, when the media exploded declaring that television coverage is “caus[ing]changes in jury behavior in real criminal trials” (Cole). Now that the CSI effect has been encountered in many court systems around the country, prosecutors have to give reasoning behind why they do not have criminal evidence for their specific case, causing juries to give questionable verdicts.
When j...
... middle of paper ...
...ua K. "Judges Should Take Steps to Counter CSI's Influence on Jurors." Forensic Technology.Ed. Sylvia Engdahl. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "CSI Effect—Does It Really Exist?" National District Attorneys Association, 2007.Opposing Viewpoints in Context.Web. 18 Nov. 2013.
Shelton, Donald E. "Expectation of Forensic Evidence Has No Bearing on Jurors' Decisions." Forensic Technology.Ed. Sylvia Engdahl. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "The 'CSI Effect': Does It Really Exist?" National Institute of Justice Journal (Mar. 2008). Opposing Viewpoints in Context.Web. 18 Nov. 2013.
"When guilt or innocence depends on fact or fiction: CSI and similar shows are blurring the lines between television and reality." Globe & Mail [Toronto, Canada] 22 Nov. 2006: A16. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.Web. 18 Nov. 2013.
The wrongful conviction of Tammy Marquardt was also aided by the misconduct of the parties involved. Goudge (2008) claimed that Smith, other medical experts and prosecutors operated with a “think dirty” mindset, which presumes guilt first, rather than the ‘innocent until proven guilty‘ doctrine highly valued in the justice system. “The Goudge Commission found the actual words ‘think dirty’ in instructions from Ontario’s chief coroners, pathologists and police chiefs in 1995” (Shapiro, 2011). In Ms. Marquardt’s case, there is no way to conceal the fact that the professionals of the adversarial system did not satisfactorily perform their roles. It has already been demonstrated that Dr. Charles Smith “saw his role as supporting the prosecution,
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
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,...
...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.
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 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,
Costanzo, Mark, and Daniel Krauss. Forensic and legal psychology: psychological science applied to law. New York, NY: Worth Publishers, 2012. Print.
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.
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 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.
Fairchild, H. & Cowan, G (1997). Journal of Social Issues. The O.J. Simpson Trial: Challenges to Science and Society.
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.