The Influence Of CSI Effect On The Courtroom

The CSI Effect and how it Affects the CourtroomMany people within society have seen crime-fighting shows. In those shows, they always catch the “bad guy,” justice is always served, and there’s always forensic evidence to tie the perpetrator to the victim or the crime. In reality, that is not always true. Forensic evidence is not only hard to find, but also hard to collect. More often than not, there’s very little to no forensic evidence at a crime scene. These unrealistic expectations of evidence “influence[s] jurors to have unrealistic expectations of forensic science during a criminal trial and affect jurors’ decisions in the conviction or acquittal process” (Alldredge, 2015). The CSI Effect is damaging to the judicial process in that it inhibits the perception of jurors when it comes to evaluating evidence during trials, makes it hard to find jurors, and it allows criminals to learn from each other’s mistakes.

Historical Origins

The CSI Effect is a theory that was originally noticed in the early 2000’s when many crime shows became popular (Alldredge, 2015). It is defined as, “a phenomenon resulting from viewing forensic and crime based television shows. This effect influences jurors to have unrealistic expectations of forensic science during a criminal trial and affect jurors’ decisions in the conviction or acquittal process” (Alldredge, 2015). Many prosecutors noticed a change in how jurors were voting, and it was alarming. If there was a lack of scientific evidence, like DNA or fingerprints, then the defendant would oftentimes be acquitted, even if there was other evidence that was sufficient enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There was a survey distributed by the National Institute of Justice in June, July, and August of 2006 that questioned applicants on their perceptions of trials and scientific evidence. It was found that “46 percent [of those questioned] expected to see some kind of scientific evidence in every criminal case” (Shelton, 2008). This all created another line of defense for the defense and made prosecuting a lot harder.

Results of the Effect

Negative Effects

Undoubtably, the biggest problem of this effect is the acquittals resulting from what jurors view as a lack of evidence. However, there are more problems that result as well. One happens to be that it is harder to find jurors. In some states, attorneys are allowed to dismiss jurors depending on what television shows they watch (Erickson, 2017). If they watch crime programs, they are more susceptible to experiencing the effect. The effect is also using resources that many bureaus don’t have. This is because “investigators have started to run seemingly useless tests simply to garner more evidence to bolster their case and appease the jury members. These tests add more strain to already-tight budgets in death investigations across the US” (Erickson, 2017). The last negative effect is that criminals are “changing their behavior” (Erickson, 2017). They are more apt to cover up their tracks and prevent evidence from being viable enough to collect and use against them, since the popularity of the crime shows increased. This has made evidence collection a lot harder.

Positive Effects

Even though there are many negative results of the effect, there are still a few positive aspects as well. Many jurors who watch CSI shows tend to want more forensic evidence, and that’s possibly a hindrance. However, “they also show patterns of superior legal knowledge compared to their non-CSI-watching counterparts” (Erickson, 2017), and that could be a good thing in a trial. Another positive aspect is that crime shows have actually increased and brought “often-overlooked criminal justice professionals to the public eye” (Erickson, 2017). Overall, the CSI Effect has benefitted the judicial system in some way.

Case Example

One of the easiest ways to understand this theory is through a real-life example. One case that gripped Americans in every household was the Casey Anthony case. It is a common belief that the jury’s verdict was a result of the CSI Effect As a synopsis, Casey Anthony was charged with first-degree murder along with a few other charges, for the death of her daughter, Caylee Anthony. There wasn’t much physical evidence or any witnesses to tie Casey to the murder. On top of that, “nobody knows exactly when or how Caylee died; her body was too badly decomposed to pinpoint the cause of death” (Alvarez, 2011). However, Casey was aware that her daughter was “missing for 31 days and created a tangle of lies, including that a babysitter kidnapped Caylee, to cover up the absence” (Alvarez, 2011). There was much more evidence that definitely didn’t prove her to be innocent, but the jurors only focused on the fact that they couldn’t find a cause of death 6 months after the beginning of decomposition and there wasn’t enough forensic evidence to fit the prosecution’s theory, once again- 6 months after the fact. In the period of time from Caylee’s disappearance to her discovery, Casey “was clearly not grieving” (Alvarez, 2011), but rather partying with her boyfriend.

Conclusion

Even though there are a few positive parts of the CSI Effect like how it brings awareness to the criminal justice field and jurors, there are still negative aspects. It somewhat taints the jury pool, too many resources are used to combat the effect, and offenders are learning and getting smarter in covering up and destroying evidence. This is a relatively big part of the criminal justice system. It affects every aspect of criminal justice, but it affects the judicial system the most. By itself, the CSI Effect doesn’t seem too harmful. But, when you mix in the lives and the deaths of individuals, it can not only become damaging to a case- it can become mutilating.