The CSI Effect

High profile cases, flawless police work, and only the most up to date technology. These are traits every reality crime show such as CSI or Criminal Minds portray. While it is no surprise that this type of television show is among the most popular, the viewers are beginning to develop a skewed perspective of forensics in the real world. This new mindset is changing more than just the way people perceive science. The misunderstanding of science and technology has begun to lead to issues in the courtroom, in real criminal trials. Jurors influenced by the appearance of perfect investigative science are demanding extensive testing that is unnecessary and extremely costly. Reality crime shows heighten juror expectations and force law enforcement
“The CSI Effect is a recent phenomenon that can be attributed to the influence of mass media. The term started appearing in legal lexicon in 2003; roughly 3 years after the show and its spin-offs became wildly popular options for the American public” (Heinrick 59). This so called “CSI Effect”, is creating major controversy in the courtroom. There is such a large different between what the media depicts and real forensic science that jurors now believe that they are more educated than prosecutors themselves. It is becoming extremely important that attorneys, judges, and anyone else involved in a case to be aware that jurors are expecting great things in regards to forensic evidence. If the “CSI Effect” is ignored within the courtroom, there is no telling what will happen. The guilty may be let free or the innocent could be wrongfully accused of something they didn’t do. In addition to the “CSI Effect”, another similar effect that has been formed because of CSI-type shows is the “Tech Effect”. The “Tech Effect” is very similar to the “CSI Effect” and is defined as a mentality in which jurors “hold higher expectations for forensic evidence because of the actual development in forensic technology” (Cole & Dioso-Villa 1345). Both the “CSI Effect” and the “Tech Effect” affirm that reality crime shows are changing the minds of its viewers, while some forensic accomplishments have been
Regardless of what crime television says “…don’t let someone convince you that because a $100,000 microscope wasn’t used to examine the evidence that the defendant, therefore, must be innocent” (Van Zandt 2). The cost of a piece of equipment doesn’t change the test results. If a blood sample is taken from a scene and matched to a potential assailant, the machinery used for that testing has nothing to do with the final outcome. Another thing that jurors don’t think about is the number of forensic scientists out there and the amount of cases each of those people have to test. On TV, forensic tests like DNA and rape kits are completed right away by a scientist who always appears to be ready and available. Unfortunately, it is nowhere near that perfect in real life. When unnecessary amounts of evidence are collected from a scene multiple issues occur. Many forensic labs across the country struggle with back logging issues. A back log happens when there are too many samples to be tested and not enough people to do it. “The New York Department Laboratory, estimates that more than 10,000 additional forensic scientists will be needed over the next decade to address these various issues” (Houck 88). The intensified expectations of jury members also poses economic issues. The cost for a criminal trial can be