The Csi Effect and How It is a Problem

Have you ever seen televison shows like CSI Los Angeles and Criminal Minds? Some of these T.V. shows are completely outrageous. But some are real and are based on actually cases in real life. The problem with these shows are that they do not accurately show how crimes get solved. Many people watch CSI shows and think how the crimes get solved is actually how the real cases work. This is called the CSI effect and it is a real problem. People on juries watch these CSI shows and think crimes are solved how they are on T.V. This has led to multiple false prosecutions. Without these T.V shows some people wouldn’t have lost years of their lives. Time is a precious thing and as humans we don’t have a lot of it. To be put in jail for a crime you didn’t comint is crazy.

In the recent years the CSI effect has become more common. It has changed the focus of the courtroom because most of the shows are based on real life cases. The line from fiction to nonfiction has blurred significantly. Television programs display actual cases but they have been severely edited to add a dramatic effect. “For example the show 48 hours displayed a 35 year old case”. The CSI effect works by making jurors think they need hard DNA evidence to put someone away. But in most cases, DNA is not a major piece of evidence. In some cases the culprit could be caught red handed in the act, but the jurors will not convict because they don’t have The hard DNA evidence like in the shows. In order to find out if the CSI effect is a real problem Gregg Barak and Kim Young, professors at Eastern Michigan University they served one thousand jurors. The jurors were questioned about their expectations and demands for scientific investigations, and what the watch on the television. Their goal was to find out if the decisions jurors make are based on the television shows they watch all the time. If they are correct and jurors are affected by CSI television shows then people could have been wrongfully prosecuted. The studies showed that about a quarter of them expected DNA evidence, half expected to have scientific evidence in every case, and a quarter expected to see fingerprint evidence. Jurors expected to see different types of physical evidence. By physical evidence I mean fingerprint, strains of hair, DNA evidence, and ballistic. The next part of the survey is what shows they watched. If you watch one law show you probably watch the others. About half of the jurors admitted to watching a CSI related shows.

CSI viewers generally have a higher expectations for evidence than non CSI viewers. CSI watchers are more likely to need scientific evidence for specific cases. Their are some instances where CSI viewers will convict without physical evidence. Like when there is an eyewitness account of what occurred. In rape cases Jurrors where less likely to convict without DNA evidence. Gregg Banks and Kim Young believe that the CSI effect isn’t as influential on cases as we think. They said ”Although CSI Viewers had higher expectations for scientific evidence than non-CSI viewers, these expectations had little, if any, bearing on the respondents’ propensity to convict.” The CSI effect is still a problem but this test has proven that not all jurors are affected by watching the criminal investigation shows. Jurors are not as affected by watching these shows as we thought. But what about all of those cases where people were wrongfully accused of a crime because of the CSI effect. Or what about all the cases where people were guilty but got free because the jury cannot make a decision? Walter Lewis is a deputy district attorney in Los Angeles. He had a rape case that he thought he would win but the jury was undecided. It was clear that the man rape the women but they where undesided because their wasn’t a connfession from the defendant. Confession never happen in court but they do happen on the televisions. The jurors expected to see a confession because of the CSI shows they watch all the time.

The CSI effect is a real problem obvisuly but since the problem has been brought up there is less and less cases where this comes up. One has to be pretty stupid to belive what they see on televison and expect to see it in a real court room. The cases that I have looked at have happened eight to ten years ago. I believe that the reason the jurors believed that all this scientific evidence had to be brought up in a case is because, at the same time the world and scientific and technological breakthroughs televisions broadcasters tried to have the same thing in television shows.