The CSI effect is described as a phenomenon held among prosecutors regarding television programs featuring forensic science. According to them, dramas such as Crime Scene Investigation influences the public as well as trial jurors to act in certain preconceived manners. As such, jurors are demanding more scientific evidence in criminal trials in order to make almost every conviction concerning murder. In television shows, death investigators analyze forensic evidence, and solve murder cases, all within an hour. However, prosecutors and police know that this is impossible in reality; writers and producers of such programs fail to make their characters and events live within achievable limits and situations in real life murder cases. As a result, professionals are concerned that jurors might let guilty defendants walk free due to failure to present forensic evidence by the prosecution during the trial. Moreover, existing evidence from research indicate that juror decision making is consistent with the CSI effect; as technology advances, people increase their expectations for the potential of forensic science.
The CSI effect is a legitimate concern due to the fact that it influences jurors who believe that cases in real life are similar to those on television programs. Moreover, many people are attracted to join forensic science for the wrong reasons as well as make people think they can get away with crimes. In television programs, the culprit is more often than not the innocent looking person you would least expect to commit a crime. This becomes a concern because jurors believe that they would probably decide that the least likely person committed the crime instead of focusing on whoever looks most guilty among suspects (Flynn, Steve, & Maurice, 2014). When people pursue forensic science for the wrong reasons, they end up changing their courses or practicing it with unmet expectations due to limited resources and time in reality. Additionally, people who watch crime scene investigations believe that they can get away with crimes. Essentially, after watching such programs, they observe the mistakes on the show that lead to their identification. As such, they know exactly what to do to avoid police and prosecutors from suspecting them in a crime they have committed.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
CSI effect has a significant impact in the courtroom since it makes prosecutors’ job harder as jurors demand high technological tests to convict suspects. On the one hand, CSI has brought to light what happens in crime scene investigations. For instance, it has done great things for medico-legal death investigators. However, on the other hand, it has brought problems as some people expect investigators to solve crimes in 60 minutes with three commercials. In reality, forensic science requires time and resources in order to provide comprehensive information and make conclusions. Moreover, the science needed to investigate many cases does not exist. Sometimes, death investigators in the field conduct unnecessary tests just to show they went the CSI extra mile. Jurors pressuring the prosecutors and police to conduct a forensic investigation within a short time and limited resources only make their work difficult. In some states, lawyers are allowed to strike jurors based on their television programs habits.
On television programs, forensic pathologists arrive at a crime scene and take only forty-five minutes to solve and close the case. This is good for television since the responsibility of TV writers and producers is to provide great shows to viewers. However, these shows are creating unrealistic expectations to some viewers, for example, the time of death determination. In reality, it is difficult to accurately determine the cause of death as there are so many variables involved, contrary to what is shown in CSI programs. This is one of the many myths spread through such television shows, even to the jurors. Police and prosecutors are expected to provide forensic evidence such as DNA and fingerprint at every trial, as it is the case with CSI programs (Flynn, Steve, & Maurice, 2014). This is not possible as it requires time, resources, and in some cases, no science is available to conduct investigations.
During trials today in the courtroom, there is increased pressure on the use of modern forensic technology. Therefore, prosecutors should consider adapting their trial skills to suppress such pressure and address increased demand instead of fighting against it effectively. Moreover, they should make sure that the foundation of reasoning in our legal systems is not left out due to potentially inadmissible evidence. Trial lawyers should utilize certain questions of jurors by addressing the answers in their opening and closing statements. CSI effect is considered an advantage to the defendant since the jurors delay their conviction until provision of clear and definite evidence against the defendant. However, prosecutors should also take this as an opportunity to convince the jurors because they will more likely accept and give credit to scientific evidence (Flynn, Steve, & Maurice, 2014). In extreme cases of CSI effect, trial lawyers should call for jury instructions regarding presence or absence of scientific evidence and introduce any offensive CSI effect evidence during a trial.
CSI effect has been a topic of discussion regarding its effect on the justice system in as far as solving cases and convicting criminals is concerned. Television programs such as Crime Scene Investigators have brought to light what happens in the shadows in forensic science. However, it has created problems of unrealistic expectations both to the public and to jurors in the courtrooms. This is critical as it affects the decisions made where a guilty person can walk free or an innocent individual convicted. More time and resources should be provided to police and prosecutors to ensure efficient and comprehensive investigations. As a result, the gap between television programs and reality will be reduced increasing efficiency from all stakeholders involved.
References
Flynn, M., Steve, M., & Maurice, P. (2014). The CSI Effect: Fact or Fiction. Knight Ridder Tribune News Service. Criminal Justice System. 56, 1-3.
