The CSI (Crime Scene Investigation) effect or the CSI syndrome is the phenomenon that shows that the media has been spreading serious concerns on the integrity of the criminal trials which are being influenced by the effects of popular television show – CSI (Dioso-Villa, 2009). It is basically the perception that the forensic science results are false as they do not match with the observations in the television show. This syndrome is the effect of the increase in the mass media. This effect started appearing in the year 2003 after the show became popular on the television.
Another side effect of this show is that there has been an increase in the number of forensic science undergraduate students across all the US universities. The number of the forensic science students graduating each year has been increased in the past few years.
According to a survey conducted by criminology professors at Eastern Michigan University, 46% of the jurors expected scientific evidences in most of the criminal cases and 22% of jurors asked for DNA evidence in every single criminal case (Shelton, 2016).
The real-life investigators of the crime scene are completely different from those shown on the television series as they are not carrying search warrants every time as this is the duty of the police investigators. Protective clothes are used by the investigators in reality, unlike the normal clothes worn by the investigators in CSI.
In reality, to identify a particular chemical, it can take hours or even days. There is no tool in real life that can do the examination in 20 seconds as shown on the CSI. Even the DNA profiling takes a few days and not just a few minutes. According to reports in the US, over 40 million viewers watch CSI in one day and 75 million people have watched at least one episode of CSI.
According to the American legislation, juries are divided into two categories, petite and grand. There are 6 jurors in the petite grand who mostly deal with the cases that involve misdemeanors. On the other hand, 12 jurors comprise the grand jury and they deal with the cases that are felonies. Most of the criminal cases are settled by plea bargain only and there are very few cases that require a jury. The cases involving a jury are highlighted by the media as well. The main aim of a criminal trial is to provide a location in order to determine the facts on which the case is based (Gardner & Anderson, n.d.).
The recent case of Robert Blake and Michael Jackson were decided by the jury and rely on the uninformed jury rather than the prosecutor or defense. Such juries are more comfortable with what they see on television. Due to this, Robert Blake was acquitted from the case. The CSI effect was seen in this case and many questions arise due to this. The main point in the case was that, he left his gun in the car, went to collect and found his wife dead with a bullet in her head. There was another testimony that says he tried to hire someone to kill his own wife. As there was no physical evidence against him, the jury asked for solid evidence. Due to the lack of blood on his clothes and lack of any residue of gunshot, the jury acquitted him. This clearly shows the CSI effect on the jury.
Most of the prosecutors are complaining that are jurors are expecting every trial to be hi-tech, as shown in the CSI. They fear that if they do not question and ask for evidence like CSI, they might acquit the criminals easily. Due to the CSI effect, the jury-
Demand for scientific testimony
Is unable to understand the trail
Is influenced by an articulate expert
Acquit the culprit, if no solid evidence
Is unduly influenced by wrong testimony
Is unable to analyze the trial properly
A number of studies conducted clearly show that the lawyers, forensic scientists and the judges endorse the existence of the effects of CSI. A survey conducted by forensic scientists in Australia clears that all the television programs related to the forensic science have negative effects on the perception of their abilities to the public. In another study conducted by the United States shows that the viewers of CSI are expecting more forensic evidence in most of the cases as compared to the non-viewers.
The CSI effect works in favor of the defense as the prosecutors now have to work harder to prove their evidence, which was not the case earlier. This shows that the CSI effect has proved positive as well in some cases. There is a strong reason to believe that the CSI effect has become a permanent part of the trials and it has pressurized both the jury and the prosecutors to be airtight for the trials every time. Now, they need to be scientifically sound in order to win the case.
References
Dioso-Villa, S. (2009). Investigating the 'CSI Effect' Effect: Media and Litigation Crisis in
Criminal Law. Stanford Law Review, 61(6), 1335. Retrieved from http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/investigating-csi-effect-effect-media-and-litigation-crisis-criminal-law
Is The 'CSI Effect' Influencing Courtrooms?. (2011). NPR.org. Retrieved 15 April 2016, from
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/06/133497696/is-the-csi-effect-influencing-courtrooms
Shelton, D. (2016). The 'CSI Effect': Does It Really Exist? | National Institute of Justice.
National Institute of Justice. Retrieved 19 April 2016, from http://www.nij.gov/journals/259/pages/csi-effect.aspx
Gardner, T., & Anderson, A. (2016). Criminal evidence: Principles and cases (9th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. ISBN: 978-1-285-45900-4.
