Negative and Positive Sides of The Csi Effect

The CSI Effect is when the line between reality and fiction becomes a blur. The name CSI Effect is based on a well-known drama series of the same name (CSI: Crime Scene Investigation), where the characters are forensic investigators based in Las Vegas. It was one of the most famous series in the United States. Due to its popularity, a lot of people started believing that everything portrayed in the series is factual when as a matter of fact it is heavily exaggerated. It also caused the production of multiple series with the same idea; a fast-paced, technologically advanced, and highly dramatic forensic investigations, such as Without a Trace, Numb3rs, and Criminal Minds. 

According to a 2006 weekly rating on TV shows, over 30 million people watched CSI: Crime Scene Investigation each night, while over 40 million people watch two other series of the same ‘genre’. These series have also affected jurors’ expectations on how fast can real forensic investigators collect, document, and interpret pieces of evidence. Most jurors who have watched these series would ask for DNA evidence for just about any court cases, thinking it is relevant to finding the right suspect. This also led people to believe that forensic evidences can always be precise and can point at the suspect right away. On a research conducted by Podlas (2006), he had a group of mock jurors to make a verdict on different cases. There was barely any variation in their verdict, but those who were avid viewers of the show CSI required more forensic evidences to validate a conviction, despite these required evidences being redundant or irrelevant. 

In general, the CSI Effect had led to jurors’ having higher expectations from forensic investigators. The CSI Effect was first mentioned by Attorney Andrew Thomas, a district attorney at Maricopa County, Arizona. He claimed that if the prosecution does not introduce forensic evidence — even if it is irrelevant or unavailable — jurors will refuse to convict or deem it “reasonable doubt” warranting an acquittal. Despite the popularity of the CSI Effect, there is barely any evidence from researches that directly proves that it can majorly impact courtroom decisions. Most ‘evidence’ for the CSI Effect is from attorneys and law enforcement officers who were surveyed and said that it has in fact altered their trial strategies to reach a verdict. The survey only proves that it had affected specific aspects of a trial procedure, but it has not greatly affected jurors’ verdict.

Although the CSI Effect is mostly perceived as negative, there are some positive effects that came with it. The most prominent one being that people now value forensic evidences more and are more careful at handling themselves when in a situation that involves forensic science. Overall, its positive effects can’t outweigh its negative effects since this huge misunderstanding and disproportioned expectations may lead to the wrongful prosecution of an innocent defendant.