Essential Question

Do shows like CSI have a negative
influence on peoples’ interpretation of
the criminal justice system?

Conclusion: Yes, viewers do not
distinguish the difference between
television and reality.
 “A phenomenon reported by
prosecutors who claim that television
shows based on scientific crime solving
have made actual jurors reluctant to
vote to convict when, as is typically
true, forensic evidence is neither
necessary or available.”
- Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
 The
CSI effect is caused by
people believing the things that
they see on television. Shows
like CSI, NCIS, or Law and
Order, use over the top
methods of finding evidence
and investigating as a way of
grabbing the attention of
viewers.


Due to people believing everything is as easy as on TV,
jurors are demanding more evidence in criminal trials
and raising the standard of proof for prosecutors.
Viewers of the crime scene shows put a lower value on
circumstantial evidence and demand physical proof,
proof that doesn’t always exist.
Since crime scene shows have become more popular,
there has been a great increase in the amount of people
interested in studying forensic science. These people
are quick to learn that everything is not as it appears on
TV.
REAL LIFE
CSI



Fingerprints are
everywhere.
DNA takes minutes to
process.
Investigators don’t have
to wait for warrants.
Fingerprints are hard to
come by at a crime
scene.
 DNA can take weeks to
process.
 Investigators must obtain
a warrant before making
an arrest or searching a
scene.

REAL LIFE
CSI

Chaotic crime scenes.

No tedious paperwork.
One person does many
jobs.
Use the term “match.”


Crime scenes are a
controlled environment.
 Paperwork has to be
proper for case to stand
strong in court.
 Jobs are split between
multiple people.
 Less definite terms.

REAL LIFE
CSI

Characters on
television use the term
“match” to describe a
definitive relationship
between two pieces of
evidence.

Forensic technicians
tend to use terms that
are less definite to
acknowledge that
absolute certainty is
often not possible.
Watching television shows like
CSI and Cold Case Files give
citizens a distorted view of
how forensic evidence is found
and what technology is
available to forensic scientists.
Some examples include:
Process times for
DNA/fingerprints
Getting molds of wounds to
match to weapons
Amount of information you can
get from a piece of evidence
CRIME-SHOW-VIEWING HABITS AND PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD
FORENSIC EVIDENCE: THE "CSI EFFECT" REVISITED*
Questions:
Do jurors consider some forms of
evidence as more reliable than
others?
Are there certain forms of
testimony that increase the
public's confidence in the reliability
of evidence?
Do crime-show viewing habits have
any effect on these assessments?
Results of the study
“DNA was considered to be the most reliable
(89.5 percent), with fingerprints (78.8 percent),
medical expert testimony (30.3 percent), police
testimony (23.3 percent), victim testimony (21.2
percent), and eyewitness testimony (21.2 percent)
following behind. The respondents found all forms
of "science-based" (i.e., DNA and fingerprint)
evidence to be more reliable than victim, police,
and eyewitness testimony.”
Results of the study
People who watched three or more hours of crime shows
per week were less likely to convict in rape or murder
cases without scientific evidence.
The greater the number of hours spent watching crime and
justice programs, the more reliable the respondents found
these forms of evidence
Crime show viewing habits directly affected a respondent's
belief about their willingness to convict without scientific
evidence