Essay About Csi Effect And Forensic Evidence

Csi Effect
CJE 2645Research the phenomenon of the “CSI Effect”. Explain what it is and why it is of concern to the judicial system. Provide an example of a criminal case it has impacted.The “CSI Effect” is a broad term used to describe how crime shows negatively influence jurors’ perception of forensic evidence in a trial. This is an important phenomenon to study because the “CSI Effect” ties directly into a topic of great concern, juror decisions being influenced by outside forces. Further study of the “CSI Effect” reveals that it can be broken down into the four effects it has on criminal cases. First, it sets unreasonable expectations among jurors. By this I mean the more forensic type of television programs people watch, the more they believe that what they see on television is actually what they will experience in a courtroom during a trial. Second, the “CSI Effect” has changed the way lawyers discuss forensics during a trial. Prosecutors in particular find themselves spending more time explaining to jurors why forensic evidence was not found at a crime scene (Deutsch, 2006). Third, the “CSI Effect” has the potential to influence jury decision-making in whether to acquit defendants. Many prosecutors feel the burden of the CSI influence on jury verdicts because if they are unable to produce a sufficient amount of forensic evidence, the jury is likely to acquit the defendant (Tyler, 2006); however, if prosecutors have forensic evidence, even if it is not crucial evidence, it may be tougher for defense attorneys to argue the defendant’s innocence because juries view forensic evidence as infallible (Tyler, 2006). Fourth, the “CSI Effect” can impact how people perceive cops and crime lab personnel do their jobs. They think that what they see on television is how the job is carried out in real life and that is not the case. An example of the “CSI Effect” can be found in the Casey Anthony case. In this case the lack of evidence may have led to the jurors acquitting Anthony. First, the prosecution could not determine how Caylee Anthony died. The jurors could not accept that forensic science was unable to determine the cause of death. Second, Casey Anthonys DNA was not on the duct tape that prosecutors said was used to suffocate Caylee Anthony. Many jurors consider DNA to be the gold standard of evidence, and when it is not present, questions arise. Third, no evidence placed Casey Anthony where her daughters body was ultimately discovered. Jurors wanted to know why the defendant, with todays scientific advancements, could not be placed at the scene of the crime (Hoffmeister, 2011).