Criminal Justice System and The Csi Effect

Introduction

We are all guilty of believing what we see on TV, from realistic drama shows to even what we hear on the news. However, not everything on TV is real, even though it might seem realistic. A prime example of “realistic” TV is all the crime dramas that we see, including shows like Law and Order: Special Victims Unit and CSI. Although these shows seem realistic and represent the judicial and criminal system in a very real way, there are gaps between what happens on the show and what happens in real life. The CSI effect is the theory that people who tend to watch crime drama television are more likely to expect forensic evidence when presented with a trial where they are called for jury duty. Depending on the amount of forensic evidence presented at the trial, there is an effect on the final decision; more forensic evidence biases the jury toward the side with more evidence. It is also believed that those who frequently watch crime drama shows are more likely to find the defendant guilty. This can be problematic because it can lead to allowing guilty people to walk free or putting innocent people in prison. In this paper, we will explore more information about the CSI effect through three scholarly-reviewed journals and determine if the CSI effect truly exists within our criminal justice system. I, personally, am extremely guilty of watching crime drama television, especially Law and Order: SVU, which is in its 21st season, lasting longer than the average television series. There is a reason that shows like these are so popular: they seem realistic and show viewers what it is like to deal with crime every day. Although these shows seem realistic, there are many flaws, such as the crimes themselves appearing overdone and exaggerated, with everything running smoothly and, in the end, the bad guy going to jail.

Understanding the CSI Effect

In the article “The CSI Effect, DNA Disclosure, and Popular Crime Dramas,” written by Gayle Rhineberger-Dunn, Steven Briggs, and Nicole Rader, the authors explore the topic of the CSI effect and what they believe from previous research. They believe there are two components to the definition of the CSI effect: “that crime show viewers expect more and better forensic evidence techniques to be given as evidence in an actual trial” (Rhineberger-Dunn, Briggs, & Rader, 2016), which creates unrealistic expectations for lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and police gathering this evidence. The other is the expectation from jurors that all forensic evidence is “reliable and infallible,” meaning that everything presented in court is 100% factual, with no mistakes, which is unrealistic since many mistakes are easily made while collecting and analyzing evidence. Personally, I can see where these expectations come from, being an avid fan of these types of TV shows; there are never many trials where there is a lack of forensic evidence that was perfectly collected and analyzed, so it is reasonable to assume all trials work the same way. In the shows, there is no worry if the evidence was flawed or poorly collected, which is an unrealistic expectation.

Impact on the Criminal Justice System

Many people working in the criminal justice system feel like they have been affected by the CSI effect. In the journal article “Beyond Frequency: Perceived Realism and the CSI Effect,” written by Evelyn M. Maeder and Richard Corbett, the authors look at polls and previous interviews with lawyers, police officers, and judges to understand their beliefs. Lawyers believe that the CSI effect can pose a threat not only to the prosecution but also to defense attorneys, as both believe that the CSI effect can change the ability of jurors to remain unbiased throughout the entire trial. However, if forensic evidence is presented by either the prosecutor or the defense attorney, jurors may become over-reliant on the forensics, potentially making the trial unfair. In a study, 74% of prosecutors say that they have tried cases in which the jurors expected scientific evidence, and 45% of lawyers believe that jurors mainly focused on only forensics (Maeder & Corbett, 2015). Due to these beliefs, many lawyers have admitted that they have had to change the way they present cases differently due to the CSI effect. Even judges believe the CSI effect has led to wrongful verdicts on the grounds of insufficient forensic evidence. Police officers have also been affected by this theory, expressing concern that these television series show an inaccurate representation of their jobs. Since police in TV shows tend to be depicted as ideal cops, real police now face unrealistic expectations of what they can accomplish, potentially leading to a loss of public trust. Another problem that the police face is that their testimonies in court are no longer as important, as lawyers tend to focus more on physical evidence rather than police testimony. For all these reasons, police have changed the way they interact with the public due to the CSI effect (Maeder & Corbett, 2015). We have discussed what the CSI effect is and how it affects the people who work in the justice system, but the question now remains: does it work? The answer is that it does not, but it does. Many studies have shown some correlation, but it is not as specific and straightforward as one might believe.

Research Findings

In the article “Jury’s Still Out: How Television and Crime Show Viewing Influences Jurors’ Evaluations of Evidence,” written by Rebecca M. Hayes-Smith, multiple experiments were conducted. They first explored a previous study where a mock rape trial was given to undergraduates, which included people who either have or have not watched crime television, acting as mock jurors. Overall, in the end, they all came to the same conclusion that the defendant was not guilty due to the lack of physical evidence. This experiment concluded that the results did not support the idea that those exposed to crime television tended to find the defendant guilty. However, they did find that when the jurors viewed a case with weak forensic evidence but strong evidence that was not forensic, those who watched more crime television were less likely to find the defendant guilty than non-crime show watchers (Hayes-Smith & Levett, 2011). In the other two articles we have already looked at, they also came to the conclusion that the results were mixed. One article found that three out of the eight experiments did not find evidence of the forensic evidence, and the results of evidence are mixed.

Conclusion

Overall, the research supports some ideas but not all. It shows that people can be influenced to some extent, though the theory makes sense, it somewhat downgrades humans by accusing them of being so gullible. As a big Law and Order fan, when I first saw this theory, I thought it was silly and unrealistic, but the more I thought about it, the more it made sense. Forensic evidence is a large aspect of crime television shows; in Special Victims Unit, they tend to have either semen samples or blood residue at the crime scene or on the victim. There was even one episode where they caught the culprit from the color of sand on their boots. A major reason why the CSI effect is so believable is that people want to believe that court can be that easy, that everyone has scientific evidence perfectly collected that can easily make or break a case. Another consideration for shows like Law and Order, CSI, and Criminal Minds is that in the span of 42 minutes, they need to find the crime and solve it, and the easiest way to convince viewers that the defendant is guilty is to show forensic evidence that cannot be questioned so they can throw someone in prison by the end of the episode. This idea really emphasizes how easily mass media can have a simple effect on viewers without them even knowing, like subliminal messaging. And since these shows are so realistic, it makes it almost seem obvious that the shows work the same way as real life. The CSI effect is restricted to crime shows, but if we really look back, every show has an effect on our lives, making it difficult to see the truth behind the screen.

References

Hayes-Smith, R. M., & Levett, L. M. (2011). Jury’s still out: How television and crime show viewing influences jurors’ evaluations of evidence. Journal of Crime and Justice, 34(1), 1-12.

Maeder, E. M., & Corbett, R. (2015). Beyond frequency: Perceived realism and the CSI effect. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 57(1), 83-114.

Rhineberger-Dunn, G., Briggs, S. J., & Rader, N. E. (2016). The CSI effect, DNA disclosure, and popular crime dramas. Crime, Media, Culture, 12(2), 197-214.