Since its premiere in 2000, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation has been one of television’s most popular shows (Smith). Following closely behind the program in terms of ratings were, and still are, shows like Law and Order: SVU, Bones and NCIS, which during the week of September 30, 2013 was the number 1 show in the country according to Nielsen ratings (Neilsen). Viewers are entertained by these fictional shows, absorbing information as if they portray what happens in real life. On any given day viewers can see reruns of these fictional dramas or they can watch the biographically accurate crime shows like Southern Fried Homicide or The First 48, that feature true stories, but often omit parts of the process involved in solving the case and the trial verdicts (Shelton). Forensic science ties directly into our criminal just system because it deals with the evidence and artifacts created during the commission of a crime. Forensic science and crime based shows on television today seemingly portray our criminal system, but viewers don’t seem to connect that these shows are still a works of fiction and that sometimes their methods used to solve crimes are far from accurate (Mancini). CSI, Bones, NCIS and other crime dramas have created an explosion in people’s interest in forensic science.
While these shows are very entertaining, they paint highly unrealistic views of how a crime lab and criminal justice system works (Harriss). The methods displayed on these shows are observed by viewers as what would seemingly take place in real life, creating a problem when it comes to the courtroom. This problem is known as the CSI effect, a phenomenon where a juror’s decisions to either convict or acquit a defendant depends heavily on the presence or absence of scientific or forensic evidence. But at this point the existence of the CSI effect has not been proven, but is thought to
Since the airing of the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and the other televised series that followed have led jurors to compare fiction with reality. The shows have changed the view on the real world of forensic science as the series have a world of forensic science of their own. For this paper the televised series titled Bones by forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs will be used as an example for comparison. In the series Bones Dr. Temperance Brenan arrives at the scene of the crime to examine the skeletal remains found in the scene of the crime equipped with one or more forensic kits. Upon momentarily examining the skeletal remains Dr. Brenan is able to determine the gender, ethnicity, and age. When this type of scenario is compared to nonfictional
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
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...
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
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 a well-known study conducted by Judge Donald Shelton, jurors were asked various questions to see if there was a significant difference in the rate of acquittals between those who watched shows such as CSI and those who do not. Attorneys, judges, and journalists have claimed that watching television programs like CSI have caused jurors to wrongfully acquit guilty defendants when no scientific evidence has been presented. To test this, 1,027 jurors were randomly selected and given a questionnaire to fill out. Questions about their demographics were listed and the jurors were asked what kind of TV shows they watched, how often, and how real they believed these shows were. The survey asked questons about seven ty...
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.
In 2006, over 100 million people in the United States tuned in to watch either CSI or any if the other forensic and criminal investigation related television show each week (CJSG). Since then, the number of viewers has increased rapidly, as well as the amount of television shows with the same type of theme. As a result of the increase of these television programs, researchers are discovering a new phenomenon called the ‘CSI Effect’ that seems to be fueling an interest in forensic science and criminal investigations nationwide. This effect is actually the ability of criminal justice themed television shows to influence and increase victims’, jurors’ and criminals’ ideas about forensics, DNA testing and methods, and criminal investigations (CJSG). Although the connection between the CSI Effect and a criminal’s mind is a growing problem, the CSI Effect influencing jurors in the United States by causing unrealistic expectations for definite forensic evidence, creating an increased ‘knowledge’ about forensic science and by creating an expectation for criminal cases and trials to be equivalent to what happens on popular criminal justice television shows is a much bigger issue.
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,
As realized, the criminal justice system has been utilized as entertainment for a while. It all started with ‘America’s most wanted ' that once featured John Walsh in search of lost children and renegades from justice. The program merged accurate details with a theatrical description of the crime in question. Not merely was the program educational, but it was enjoyable as well. In 1989, entertainment aspect of Criminal justice as continued with the debut of ``COPS, a program that pursued police officers throughout their shift and exhibited how they hunted down wrongdoers, pursued them if needed and apprehended them. At present, there are numerous fact-oriented shows on the TV, and each describes a different aspect of the criminal justice system.
The media is a dominating aspect of American culture. The way the media depicts crime and criminal behavior has an effect on the way society views crime and criminals. Television series such as CSI, NCIS, Law and Order, Criminal Minds and countless others, have become very popular in our society today showing that our culture has an immense interest in crime. It is clear that there is a fascination with criminals and why they do the things they do. To analyze the way crime dramas represent crime and criminal behavior, I completed a content analysis of one episode of Criminal Minds. The episode I chose was season one; episode eight, which first aired in 2005, titled ‘Natural Born Killer’.
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.
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
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.
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