The media has a tremendous impact on the area of forensic science. The CSI effect is when juries oftentimes acquit a defendant on the basis that there was a lack of forensic evidence. Therefore, prosecutors feel the need to explain more at length why there is a lack of forensic evidence, to deemphasize the CSI effect. Although, this does not always work in their favor. There is also the idea of how juries sometimes view the forensic scientist called in on a case. They tend to liken them to the characters they see on television and connote respective feelings of admiration or vice versa. There is also a lack of interest in forensics when it does not live up to the televised expectations. I agree with many aspects of the article. Although people can be argued as intelligent and can be seen as rising above the CSI effect, it is a plausible threat. There are many shows out there that include forensics as a main point of interest. Most of these shows are very popular and have high viewer ratings. Thus if this is what the public is watching and evidently learning from, it can have a tremendous impact on the way they make decisions. Although there are those select few that are more knowledgeable in the area of forensics, majority of the public is oblivious. When someone is not informed of the correct way in which to apply forensics, the media has ample opportunity to influence and distort its use in its portrayal of forensics. If I were to sit on a jury I would be playing out the hundreds of episodes I viewed and seeing if they matched up to actual court room proceedings. However, by making the public aware of the adverse effect media has on the prosecution of cases, they can try and come to more logical conclusions.
The counterattack of the CSI effect is that it does not have an effect on the burden of truth. The ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ is a high burden of proof and held to the strongest standard of law. Therefore the CSI effect, which is a non-articulated TV...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document