How The CSI Effect Has Had An Impact In The Criminal Justice Field

CSI Effect
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

CSI Effect
The CSI effect can be described as the belief that crime episodes shown on television have an impact on police investigations as well as the conclusions arrived at by jurors. TV episodes like CSI are known to place unreasonable doubts and the effects on the jurors’ minds, thus leading to wrongful acquittals. Judges and prosecutors argue that TV shows like CSI make jurors and police officers to be unrealistic especially when it comes to making important decisions in the court room (Kopacki, 2013). The reason why police officers and jurors are said to be out of touch with reality is because they put emphasis on seeking for irrefutable scientific proof. This lead to episodes where individuals who are guilty are acquitted or where sort of proof is denied since the court demands for additional evidence.
Experts provides an example of a rape incident which occurred in 2004 when the jurors came with a not-guilty decision yet saliva was the DNA proof that was discovered on the victim’s body. This also includes additional items of the victims that were collected at the crime scene. The comments of the juror showed that they were looking for additional forensic evidence, which is the dirt that was retrieved from the lady to match the dirt that was present at the crime scene (Dysart, 2012). The judge ruling the case said that they knew from CSI that law enforcement authorities could seek for evidence from such kinds of things, implying that demand for DNA was ridiculous and it was the effect of CSI at work.
Although huge amount of evidence such as the case involving rape analyzed by Campbell reveal that the effect of CSI tend to exist, there are different options that argue that is does not exist. For instance, in article entitled “‘CSI Effect’ Does It Really Exist?” authored by Donald E. Shelton, this felony judge goes through a stepwise analysis of CSI effect. He uses data and research to argue that jurors who watch CSI tend to have huge expectations and that there is no evidence that reveals the existence of the effect f CSI (Wise, 2010).
He argues that in each crime scene, people who watch CSI have a higher likelihood of convicting without relying on scientific evidence especially with the availability of testimony from eyewitnesses. In cases that involve rape, viewers of CSI are less probable to offend a person without the availability of DNA evidence (Kopacki, 2013). Lastly, in break-and-entering theft events, jurors who watch CSI have a higher likelihood of convicting when there is a victim in addition to other testimony, even with the absence of evidence based on the fingerprints.
Shelton argues that police officers and the entire criminal justice system should acclimatize to changes and such can be done in two distinct ways. The first step is to meet the jurors’ expectations and provide them with the sort of proof that they are demanding. This requires increased amount of law enforcement resources, obligation, and providing the police officers and other investigative forces with contemporary forensic resources (Dysart, 2012). The second option is to provide lawyers, prosecutors, and judges with the needed intelligence so that they can be able to address the needed expectation. When necessary, jurors need to be informed in situations where there is critical lack of enough evidence.
CSI has had a huge effect on the criminal justice system, particularly on the part of police...