Contemplating Controversy

One of the most controversial topics that crime scene investigators deal with is whether or not a “CSI: Effect” is real. A “CSI Effect” is the phenomenon in which jurors hold unrealistic expectations of forensic evidence and investigation techniques and have an increased interest in forensic science in all trials. On one side truly believes that juries are affected by fictional portrayals of crime investigations. This affects how jurors react in real life trials. Many believe that is helping the defense because the jurors expect there to be forensic evidence to make someone guilty but in many cases it does not exist. As a result, evidence that once brought convictions does not anymore. Jurors are also less likely to convict someone who is guilty because the techniques they see in the fictional TV shows are not what is being used in the real courts.

But the other side disagrees saying that there is no evidence that TV fiction has changed jury behavior.  In many surveys done of jurors, they say that CSI shows had little to no control on there decisions.  Also scholars have pointed out that it may actually be an advantage to the prosecution rather than the defense because this means that the jurors are more educated. Another reason is that there is no actual empirical evidence that a CSI Effect exists. The claims are only based on merely anecdotes according to law enforcements.

Both sides of this controversy bring up interesting agreements to CSI effect. I hope to do more research on both sides of the controversy for further blogs. 

CSI Effect." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper Limited, 22 Apr. 2010. Web