Summary: The Effects Of CSI
The effects of CSI
The effects of CSI/ DNA
In review of CSI for the influence that it has on DNA analysis involved in investigative crimes, there perceptions which have surmised not only by ordinary citizen’s but also by law enforcement and jurors themselves. After all they are all just people too. Shelton (2008) points out how a complaint that “…Jurors now expect us to have a DNA test for just about every case” reveals their perception of what CSI has a main objective to do (p. 2). Such perceptions are said to be derived from television CSI shows that depict what is to be expected from common themes. If certain elements of an allegation of crime presents DNA to support such, there is also the real possibility that the alleged crime is …show more content…
The CSI effect can only exist where relativity of crime includes all possible exhibits that the accused is guilty by contact, without invitation, and without reasonable doubt. An eyewitness can be one of the best elements of a crime, as DNA can be used conclusively or inconclusively where there are no witnesses. The same applies where there are witnesses who are only able to positively ID an accused defendant based simply on the fact that they know, or know of the accused, yet have no relative knowledge of the crime and circumstances involved. This is not the case however with CSI within television influence. In viewing some shows, all evidence that point at an accused, regardless the means and how such evidence may be used, will more likely bring about a positive criminal case file. When DNA cannot be excluded, does not necessarily mean that the accused is the guilty party, it means that their DNA within ratio, and vicinity simply cannot be left out amongst others. In many cases, public perception does not differ much from that of the actual responsibilities of law enforcement, yet their roles are to administer due process and fairness of law. It is probable that cases may lack fairness in process, such as in
The effects of CSI/ DNA
In review of CSI for the influence that it has on DNA analysis involved in investigative crimes, there perceptions which have surmised not only by ordinary citizen’s but also by law enforcement and jurors themselves. After all they are all just people too. Shelton (2008) points out how a complaint that “…Jurors now expect us to have a DNA test for just about every case” reveals their perception of what CSI has a main objective to do (p. 2). Such perceptions are said to be derived from television CSI shows that depict what is to be expected from common themes. If certain elements of an allegation of crime presents DNA to support such, there is also the real possibility that the alleged crime is …show more content…
The CSI effect can only exist where relativity of crime includes all possible exhibits that the accused is guilty by contact, without invitation, and without reasonable doubt. An eyewitness can be one of the best elements of a crime, as DNA can be used conclusively or inconclusively where there are no witnesses. The same applies where there are witnesses who are only able to positively ID an accused defendant based simply on the fact that they know, or know of the accused, yet have no relative knowledge of the crime and circumstances involved. This is not the case however with CSI within television influence. In viewing some shows, all evidence that point at an accused, regardless the means and how such evidence may be used, will more likely bring about a positive criminal case file. When DNA cannot be excluded, does not necessarily mean that the accused is the guilty party, it means that their DNA within ratio, and vicinity simply cannot be left out amongst others. In many cases, public perception does not differ much from that of the actual responsibilities of law enforcement, yet their roles are to administer due process and fairness of law. It is probable that cases may lack fairness in process, such as in