Impact of the CSI Effect on the Forensic Sector

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Click Here To Order Now!

Impact of the CSI Effect on the Forensic Sector

The CSI Effect on Jury Expectations

The CSI effect is a significant issue in Forensics because the jury is formed of members of the public who most likely do not have experience in the field of forensics, so their expectations are based on what they see in television programs and in the media. The jury has a lot of influence over the outcome of a trial so therefore, the expectations they have about forensics compared to reality may have a major impact on the verdict of the trial. In CSI, it was found that the protagonist searched for DNA evidence in 86% of all episodes, found it in 84%, and used it to solve a case in 39% of episodes (Brewer and Ley 2009). This shows that forensic programs usually place a lot of emphasis on the use of scientific evidence to solve the crime, so therefore, if a case does not involve the use of scientific evidence such as DNA and fingerprints, the jurors may be reluctant to see a defendant as guilty as they are more likely to see someone as guilty if there is scientific evidence due to the CSI effect.

Shelton et al (2006), conducted a study to see whether the CSI effect exists and how much of an impact this can have on the jury. In this study, 1027 jurors who were summoned for jury duty had to complete a survey before them being assigned a case. This survey listed thirty-three programs and asked respondents to rate their watching patterns. Based on the results gathered from the surveys, the sample was divided into two groups: CSI watchers and non-CSI watchers to see how exposure to CSI affects juror decision-making. The study’s authors then spoke to the jurors in detail to determine their expectations about the types of evidence that may be presented during a trial. Overall, 46.3% of the jurors expected to see some form of scientific evidence in every criminal case. The jury members were also asked specific questions about different types of forensic evidence. In every case, 21.9% of the jury members expected to see DNA, 36.4% expected to see fingerprint evidence, and 32.3% expected to see ballistic or other firearm evidence. Their expectations about the types of scientific evidence varied according to the type of crime. 45.5% expected to see DNA evidence in more serious violent crimes such as murder and 72.6% expected to see DNA in rape cases. 71.1% expected to see fingerprint evidence in breaking and entering crimes and 65.5% in crimes involving a gun (Shelton et al, 2006)

It was concluded through a series of t-test analyses that CSI watchers had higher expectations for all kinds of evidence than non-CSI watchers had. CSI watchers also had higher expectations that they would see ballistic evidence in a murder case and fingerprints in crimes involving breaking and entering which is an example of how forensic-related programs have changed the juries’ expectations of what should be present at a crime due to the dramatization of forensics. (Shelton et al, 2006)

Schweitzer and Saks (2007) carried out a similar study to assess whether the CSI effect has an impact on jurors’ expectations and the findings are similar to the results of Shelton et al’s (2006) study. In this study, participants were grouped based on their forensic-related television-watching habits. It was found that participants that were viewers of forensic-related programs had a greater understanding of forensic science, greater confidence in their verdicts, and were more skeptical about the forensic evidence presented during the trial (Schweitzer and Saks, 2007). Both of the above studies show the CSI effect’s impact on jurors’ expectations and the way they perceive forensic evidence. Overall, jurors are more knowledgeable about forensic science due to the exposure to CSI which could have a positive impact on their confidence in their verdict, however, watchers of CSI are more likely to be skeptical about forensic evidence leading to potential wrongful convictions or acquittals.

The CSI Effect’s Influence on Legal Professionals

The CSI effect also has an impact and is a sign for those who work in the courts such as judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. Since the popularity of CSI has increased, jobs have been affected both positively and negatively in many ways. A positive impact the CSI effect has had is the fact that the jury is more educated so therefore, there may not be as many questions regarding different forms of evidence however, this has also had a negative impact as the jury has developed the idea that all forensic evidence is relevant due to the CSI effect so therefore, the prosecutors could spend more valuable time during trials explaining why certain evidence is not relevant. As a result of the popularity of CSI, the jury may also have certain ideas of the prosecutors and the defense because of how they are portrayed in forensic-related programs. The defense is often painted in a bad light which could result in an unfair trial as the jury are more likely to be biased towards the prosecution due to how they have depicted television (Robbers, 2008).

Robbers (2008) conducted a study that examined the difference between media depictions of forensics in comparison to reality and the extent to which these depictions of forensics can influence jurors. This study also showed CSI’s impact on those who work in this field. This study randomly selected 290 prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges to complete a survey. All the respondents had criminal trial experience before and after forensic programs became popular. The respondents were asked to discuss specific instances in which they thought juriesâ decisions influenced forensic-related programs. The respondents were also asked whether these programs had an impact on their jobs and the juries’ decisions generally. 79% of the respondents provided specific instances in which they felt juries had made their decisions based on forensic programs they had watched. 53% of respondents mentioned the discounting of eyewitnesses by jurors and their preference for forensic evidence. 46% of judges, 49% of prosecutors, and 39% of defense attorneys discussed cases where the jury acquitted defendants because no forensic evidence was presented at the trial (Robbers, 2008). The respondents also commented on how forensic-related programs had impacted their jobs. Judges mentioned how they had to spend more time clarifying forensic evidence for jurors and prosecutors mentioned how they had to spend more time going through the forensic evidence after experts had discussed it (Robbers, 2008). Prosecutors also claimed to have to take more time during trials to explain the absence of forensic evidence than before due to the jury’s expectations based on CSI (Cole and Dioso-Villa, 2007). 11% of defense attorneys commented that they felt forensic programs portrayed them in a bad light, making it difficult for jurors to view defendants and their attorneys fairly. 54% of respondents wrote about how they felt that watching forensic programs had become a part of their job so they can familiarize themselves with what the jurors might expect from forensic evidence they can be prepared to address why certain techniques were not carried out in their case. (Robbers, 2008)

Overall, 70% of the respondents expressed the issue that jurors have unrealistic expectations about the forensic evidence and police work showing what an impact the CSI effect has had on modern-day forensics. (Robbers, 2008) The respondents used in this study had criminal trial experience before and after CSI become popular so this provided an insight into the impact of CSI. The results showed that the CSI effect does exist and has had a significant impact on trials, especially in cases where individuals have been wrongfully acquitted.

The Police Chief’s Effect: Educating Offenders

The police chief’s effect is that CSI programs make offenders more aware of forensic techniques and educate criminals on how to hide evidence to avoid crime detection (Dioso-Villa, 2015). CSI programs often show different methods of hiding evidence such as using bleach, which destroys DNA, to clean up blood at crime scenes or wearing gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints at the crime scene to prevent police detection (Durnal, 2010). The police chief’s effect is a significant issue in society as it could increase crime rates and make it harder for investigators to obtain evidence potentially meaning the case is not solved and the criminal goes on to commit more crimes (Cole and Dioso-Villa, 2011). This is a contemporary issue as offenders are now more forensically aware than before due to the exposure to CSI-related programs meaning they take additional steps to avoid detection. Beauregard and Field (2008) suggested that offenders who moved the victim’s body after the murder to delay detection showed a higher degree of forensic awareness, this is most likely a result of CSI exposure as potential offenders can see methods that are used in television programs by offenders committing similar crimes. (Beauregard and Field, 2008)

In an examination of 222 stranger sexual assaults, it was found that in 55.9% of cases, offenders showed some form of forensic awareness, and the most common form of modus operandi was related to hiding their identity by wearing gloves or a disguise. Very few offenders took precautions with the removal of DNA and therefore do not understand the significance of DNA in terms of identification (Beauregard and Bouchard, 2010). A study on forensic awareness in sexual homicide cases found that less than half of the offenders took at least one precaution to avoid detection so it could be argued that offenders are educated more by their committing previous crimes rather than education through CSI programs. Only 30.6% of offenders destroyed or removed evidence in this study (Beauregard and Martineau, 2013).

Overall, the CSI effect does not have as much of an impact on offenders in comparison to other areas as it has not resulted in a major increase in criminals being cautious of the evidence they leave at the scene. Offenders will be more aware of the types of forensic evidence because of CSI and other forensic programs, but research has shown that most offenders aren’t cautious and are not aware of the significance of forensic evidence such as DNA.

Impact of the CSI Effect on Victims

The CSI effect has also impacted victims of crimes both positively and negatively. They can know the value of forensic evidence in the same way the jury can as a result of watching CSI-related programs. Positive impacts of the CSI effect on the public include educating potential victims on how to act in situations such as kidnappings, so they can leave forensic evidence for experts to find and help the investigation (McConnell, 2014). An example of this was Lance Corporal Jonathan Haynes’s case where he raped and kidnapped women. He was caught when one of his victims, who he raped and pushed into his car, tore out strands of her own hair and spat on the seat of his car to provide evidence that she thought could be useful during an investigation. The victim was aware of the significance of DNA evidence after watching CSI, so she knew what to do in that situation. The physical evidence left in the car lead to the conviction of Haynes, and he was given an 11-year sentence (Orr, 2011). This shows the positive impact that the CSI effect has had on modern-day crimes as the knowledge viewers have gained from watching CSI-related programs, has led to the convictions of criminals, and has helped experts during investigations.

Conclusion: The Multifaceted Impact of the CSI Effect

However, the CSI effect can hurt victims regarding the evidence they expect to be collected and tested by experts. CSI has produced expectations to viewers that the police can collect and examine forensic evidence from all crime scenes, because of this, police officers spend more time collecting forensic evidence that may not be relevant to that crime to satisfy victims’ demands (Makin, 2012). Police officers often complain that victims offer advice on how to solve cases and made demands on resources. This is due to the knowledge the public has gained from forensic-related programs due to how they represent police work (Stenross and Kleinman, 1989). A study was carried out by insert article author name where 31 police officers were interviewed about whether they believe CSI has had an impact on their field of work. When asked whether they believed CSI influenced the way the public perceives the police officer’s role and whether they questioned how they carry out their job, 28 respondents stated that they have had an experience where a member of the public questioned something they were doing. Many respondents perceived victims and witnesses as having unrealistic expectations due to television causing dissatisfaction when the reality of the investigation is not the same.