The CSI Effect is best described as the phenomenon of "television educated" jurors. As a result of popular television shows, such as CSI and Law and Order, the public is exposed to trials routinely in their everyday lives. These shows paint an unrealistic picture of police investigations and the legal profession. There are concerns about how the depiction of forensic science on crime shows is influencing public perceptions of trials. It is thought that jurors have begun to expect that the use of DNA testing and fingerprint dusting is routine, and therefore, are dissatisfied when the prosecution does not present this type of evidence in trial. While there is no direct evidence supporting this effect, some theories offer that these types of shows lead to an "impossibly high standard" for the prosecution in criminal trials. American Juries: The Verdict, Neil Vidmar & Valerie P. Hans, p. 197. Others theorize that the jury's exposure to crime shows actually lower the standard of proof required.
The widely taken stance on the CSI Effect is that the increased viewership of forensic crime television shows increases the jury's desire of forensic crime evidence in trial. Based on the viewing of these fiction trials, jurors have come to expect that this is the standard of evidence required to convict. They believe this is common and without it, they believe the case is too weak to convict the defendant. In one study in Maricopa County, Arizona, they prosecutors found that the jury focused mainly on the scientific evidence presented and ignored the other evidence - such as witness and police testimony. Additionally, these jurors asked many questions using "forensic science terms that had not been employed in the trial." American Juries: The Verdict, Neil Vidmar & Valerie P. Hans, p. 197.
The CSI Effect has been discussed since the early twenty-first century, and much empirical research has been done on this phenomenon. However, most studies lead to the conclusion that there is no significant impact of crime show viewership on the juror's decision. Some of these studies were conducted by participants reading a trial transcript. After the participant read the transcript, they were asked whether they though the defendant was guilty. These studies concluded that participants who watched forensic crime shows were no more or less likely to acquit the defendant.
While there is no direct evidence of the CSI Effect on jurors, it is still an important phenomenon to be aware of. Just the fact that attorneys believe the effect to be true can have a negative impact on their performance in the court room. Attorneys should be cautious about using forensic science as evidence solely because they believe it will bolster their case.
No comments:
Post a Comment