An Investigation of the CSI Effect - Research Paper Example

An Investigation of the CSI Effect Introduction CSI is an acronym that is frequently used to mean Crime Scene Investigation. It represents the intersection of science, law, and logic. Processing a crime scene is long and tedious. It includes the documentation of all the variables present at the scene and collecting exhibits that reconstructs the commission of the crime to determine the offender and how he/she went about it. At a crime scene, the personnel are expected to collect, for instance, dried blood from the window panes without contaminating it with fingerprints present on the same pane, lift hair off a jacket belonging to the victim by carefully using tweezers to avoid disturbing the fabric so that it does not contaminate the evidence, and also use a sledgehammer to demolish a wall when they believe that there is something hidden behind it that is emitting a foul smell (Tyler, 2006). Crime and the criminal justice system have been proven to be an interesting theme for film and television scriptwriters. The present focus of the media to use courtroom dramas as a way of entertaining its viewers has taken a turn. There are reality shows that cover the trials of cases as they occur in the courtroom. However, reality and fiction have been blurred by the tendency to edit the scenes from the courtrooms to make them exciting for the viewers. The criminal justice system is further distorted by extremely attractive "based on reality" crime T.V programs like CSI and CSI Miami that are directed by the CBS (Tyler, 2006). Not only has CSI gained popularity, but it has influenced the writing of other forensic shows, namely; Cold Case and Bones (Tyler, 2006). The CSI Effects According to Shelton’s (2006) study, “30 million people watched CSI on one night, at least 70 million watched the CSI shows, whereas 40 million watched other forensic shows without a trace and cold case.” In return, most of the top T.V programs broadcasted scientific evidence of criminal cases (Shelton, 2006). According to Tyler’s (2006) findings, “a good number of judges, attorneys and journalists have made justifiable claims that viewing crime investigation programs like CSI has influenced Jurors to acquit defendants who are guilty despite lack of scientific evidence being presented in a court of law.” The Honorable Donald E. Sheldon at one point heard a Juror making remarks on their dissatisfaction with the job done by the prosecution (Sheldon, 2006). Findings of one district attorney showed that the Jurors of today expect the presentation of forensic DNA reports for almost all cases (Shelton, 2006). They expect the application of the latest evolved technology in solving a crime. Precisely, they expect a replica of what is depicted in the fictional stories. The question, however, is, do these feelings describe what the Jurors of today expect? And if this is the case, should the CSI take the entire fault? Criminology professors have taken up the duty of research through survey methodology with the aim of responding to some of these questions. The CSI Effect has resulted in the prosecutors expectations being moved a notch higher. The justification being that the adversarial system that represents our legal system demands the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt prior to State receiving a mandate to punish the accused person legally. When a crime scene provides the possibility for a scientific test to prove guilt or innocence, and the prosecution ignores to conduct the test and present the results before the Jury, then it has every right to question the strength of the state vs. the accused. To attain the capacity to respond to the expectations of the courtroom, the government needs to equip the law enforcement agencies with the latest technology, as well as distribute resources necessary to equip the investigation agencies with the recent equipment in forensic science. These expectations also call for exemplary improvements in our nations crime laboratories to keep pace with the increased demand for forensic analysis and minimize backlogs of evidence. Shelton’s (2008) study further established an increased need to equip players of the courtroom drama with better ways to respond to the expectations of the Jurors in an incidence of lack of scientific evidence. The prosecutors should learn other ways to support witness statements when there is no exhibit for the purpose (Shelton, 2008). Making a distinct observation that some of these expectations are forcing the prosecutors to spend most of their time explaining to the Jurors what type of scientific evidence is necessary in a case. Prosecutors have introduced a new witness in criminal cases called the “negative evidence” witness, whose function is to explain to the Jury that investigators were unable to collect any evidence from the crime scene (Dioso-Villa, 2009). Dioso-Villa’s (2009) argument is that “the CSI has exposed the activities of the investigators and law enforcement officers, which is what they look for at a crime scene to solve a crime.” Since criminals watch television too, they have become more technical when committing all types of crimes, besides learning how to control investigations through determining the movements of the investigator. They hardly leave evidence at the crime scene, and when they do, it is either contaminated or false evidence. For instance, the use of bleach to destroy DNA. However, such kind of T.V. shows distort the publics perception of the criminal justice system. They exaggerate the fastness of police investigations when attempting to solve a crime case. Besides, they reveal the complexity of the courtroom dramas on what they expect about a charged criminal to being sentenced or released. Anderson’s (2013) analysis found “viewers of forensic T.V programs to be expecting police departments to deploy crime scene investigators and forensic team and crime lab shortly after reporting a minor offense the.” In essence, small police departments do not have these analysts or the financial resources to test every piece of evidence or exhibits (Anderson, 2013). Summary Having apparently looked at both the positive and negative effects of the forensic investigation shows, it is worth finding solutions to managing these effects on the Jury. To a credible degree, the CSI may influence the Jury, and so the question becomes whether or not to alter the strategy of the trial to counteract it. The following are examples of the measures employed as countermeasures to the CSI Effect. Trial lawyers may after a long time of routine case study lose some perspectives on the case, making a fresh pair of eyes necessary through consultation. The consultants review is aimed at identifying potential CSI effect issues. Coming up with a mock Jury, which means role playing a case to determine any CSI effects issues may arise in the course of the trial process. Another useful method is through questioning the Jurors regarding their leisure activities, occupation, and personality type. This provides insight into the thought process of both the prosecutor (know the Jurors expectations) and the Jurors (avoid the CSI Effect syndrome when making a ruling on a particular case. Opening and closing statements can also inform the Jurors on the lack of scientific evidence during trials. When potential CSI Effect issues are present, it becomes necessary to employ counteractive CSI tactics, such as presenting exhibits of high-tech to clarify complicated matters in a criminal or civil case. Therefore, when there is the probability of CSI Effect issues to crumple the trial process, the prosecutors should be careful in their choice of expert witnesses, as well as carefully train the witnesses on how to relay their testimonies. From Tyler’s (2006) findings, Cross-Examination is necessary for understanding the Jury’s instructions. In a nutshell, this research has made it clear how impossible it is to refute the fact that criminal investigation dramas are the total opposite of what is practiced in the real world context. References Anderson, M. (2013, April 10). The "CSI Effect": TV Crime Dramas Impact on real life cases. Retrieved June 3, 2015, from Forensic Medicine: http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/The-CSI-Effect-TV-Crime-Dramas-Impact-on-Real-Life-Cases--202443501.html Dioso-Villa, S. A. (2009). Investigating the CSI Effect: Media and Litigation Crisis in Criminal Law. Stanford Law Review. http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/investigating-csi-effect-effect-media-and-litigation-crisis-criminal-law Sheldon, H. D. (2006). The CSI Effect: Does It Exist? Retrieved June 3, 2015, from NIJ JOURNAL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/221501.pdf Shelton, D. Y. (2006). A Study of Juror Expectations and Demands Concerning Scientific Evidence: Does the CSI Effect Exist? Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 331-368. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/221500.pdf Shelton, H. D. (2008). The CSI Effect: Does It Exist? National Institute of Justice, 1-7. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Viewing CSI and the Threshold of Guilt: Managing Truth and Justice in Reality and Fiction. The Yale Law Journal, 3-36. http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Alumni_Affairs/Tyler_Viewin_CSI_and_the_Threshol.pdf Read More