CSI Effect

1518 Words7 Pages
This essay will analyse what the Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) Effect is and the impact it has on prosecutors. The CSI Effect is a phenomenon in which television programs emphasise forensic science, including CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and the Law and Order franchises, and has created the expectation by the general population that the prosecution will produce forensic evidence in the bulk of their cases, regardless of whether it will secure a conviction. (Hempel, 2003, p.13 cited in Cooley, M. & Turvey, B. 2014, p173) CSI based programs present the illusion that forensic laboratories are provided with technologically advanced equipment, highly qualified teams and numerous resources to investigate and quickly solve individual cases. (Houck,…show more content…
The Economist (2015, para. 10) refers to a case in Virginia that resulted in acquittal due to a juror’s enquiry as to whether a cigarette had been tested for DNA. The evidence had been tested, however defense lawyers had failed to present it. Conversely, and to the frustration of prosecutors, there is a guilty proportion who, due to lack of evidence, have also been acquitted. (Shelton, D. 2010 p.2) Heinrick (2006, p.59) states a guilty person may also be exonerated purely on DNA evidence, as illustrated by the Robert Blake murder trial, wherein the defendant claimed his gun was in the car when his wife was murdered. Further testimony under oath confirmed Blake had candidly discussed methods, including evidence of attempts to hire a third party, to kill his wife. However, due to the absence of blood or gunshot residue remaining and no other forensic evidence to support a guilty verdict, the jury dismissed the testimony and elected to acquit Blake. (Heinrick, J. 2006, p.59) An example of the CSI Effect in action, the verdict frustrated prosecutors, with the Los Angeles attorney for the prosecution describing the jurors as “incredibly stupid”. (Roan, R.K. 2005, cited in Heinrick, J. 2006,…show more content…
Positively, the CSI Effect has to some extent facilitated jurors to make accurate judgements on whether or not they should convict or acquit whilst also influencing the work of forensic scientists to produce more accurate evidence. The negative aspect is equally as important, given that professionals in the field have falsified tests in order to achieve a conviction, whilst often, those who should have been convicted were not, based on the lack of evidence that was not necessarily essential to ascertain guilt. Likewise, the backlog produced by gathering excessive evidence can cause delays in trials. Prosecutors have started to feel obstructed by the jurors’ requirements for forensic evidence thus resulting in lengthy explanations as to why forensic science was not utilised. The CSI Effect is a primary cause of frustration for prosecutors who have lost a solid case due to a lack of potentially unnecessary scientific evidence. The CSI Effect, however, can be also a source of satisfaction for prosecutors when jurors’ expectancies of forensic evidence has aided a prosecutor succeeding in an otherwise difficult
Open Document