Essential Question Do shows like CSI have a negative

influence on peoples’ interpretation of the criminal justice system?

Conclusion: Yes, viewers do not distinguish the difference between television and reality.

“A phenomenon reported by prosecutors who claim that television shows based on scientific crime solving have made actual jurors reluctant to vote to convict when, as is typically true, forensic evidence is neither necessary or available.”

- Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

The CSI effect is caused by people believing the things that they see on television. Shows like CSI, NCIS, or Law and Order, use over the top methods of finding evidence and investigating as a way of grabbing the attention of viewers.

Due to people believing everything is as easy as on TV, jurors are demanding more evidence in criminal trials and raising the standard of proof for prosecutors. Viewers of the crime scene shows put a lower value on circumstantial evidence and demand physical proof, proof that doesn’t always exist.

Since crime scene shows have become more popular, there has been a great increase in the amount of people interested in studying forensic science. These people are quick to learn that everything is not as it appears on TV.

CSI REAL LIFE

Fingerprints are everywhere.

DNA takes minutes to process.

Investigators don’t have to wait for warrants.

Fingerprints are hard to come by at a crime scene.

DNA can take weeks to process.

Investigators must obtain a warrant before making an arrest or searching a scene.

CSI REAL LIFE

Chaotic crime scenes. No tedious paperwork. One person does many

jobs. Use the term “match.”

Crime scenes are a controlled environment.

Paperwork has to be proper for case to stand strong in court.

Jobs are split between multiple people.

Less definite terms.

CSI REAL LIFE

Characters on television use the term “match” to describe a definitive relationship between two pieces of evidence.

Forensic technicians tend to use terms that are less definite to acknowledge that absolute certainty is often not possible.

Watching television shows like CSI and Cold Case Files give citizens a distorted view of how forensic evidence is found and what technology is available to forensic scientists.

Some examples include:

Process times for DNA/fingerprints

Getting molds of wounds to match to weapons

Amount of information you can get from a piece of evidence

CRIME-SHOW-VIEWING HABITS AND PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD FORENSIC

EVIDENCE: THE "CSI EFFECT" REVISITED*Questions:

Do jurors consider some forms of evidence as more reliable than others? Are there certain forms of testimony that increase the public's confidence in the reliability of evidence? Do crime-show viewing habits have any effect on these assessments?

Results of the study“DNA was considered to be the most reliable (89.5 percent), with fingerprints (78.8 percent), medical expert testimony (30.3 percent), police testimony (23.3 percent), victim testimony (21.2 percent), and eyewitness testimony (21.2 percent) following behind. The respondents found all forms of "science-based" (i.e., DNA and fingerprint) evidence to be more reliable than victim, police, and eyewitness testimony.”

Results of the studyPeople who watched three or more hours of crime shows per week were less likely to convict in rape or murder cases without scientific evidence.

The greater the number of hours spent watching crime and justice programs, the more reliable the respondents found these forms of evidence

Crime show viewing habits directly affected a respondent's belief about their willingness to convict without scientific evidence