The CSI effect and its impact on criminal justice

¶ … Art imitates life, but the onslaught of televisions shows that deal with crime scene investigation have jurors expecting for life to imitate art. This is described as the CSI Effect named after a popular CBS television series. The purpose of this discussion is to explore the impact that the CSI effect has had upon jurors and the judicial system. The research will also investigate the impact of the CSI effect on prosecutors. In addition we will explore the some o the positive factors that have come about as a result of the CSI Effect. Let us begin our discussion by defining the "CSI Effect.

CSI Effect

According to an article found in U.S. News, the TV Series CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and other television shows such as Law and order with their fast and often accurate way of solving crime through forensic evidence has jurors believing that crimes in real life be solved in the same fashion. In addition, the CSI effect has impacted the rate of college students entering forensic science at colleges across the country (Prosecutors feel the CSI Effect). According to CBS new approximately 60 million Americans watch CSI each week and millions more also watch similar shows (Prosecutors feel the CSI Effect). According to an article entitled "The CSI effect' on Real Juries" defining this effect is easy: "Having watched hour after hour of "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" and other legal dramas, jurors nationwide are demanding forensic evidence and acquitting defendants when prosecutors don't deliver (Treleven, 2005)."

In many courtrooms across the nation many jurors are now asked what television shows that they watch. Treleven (2005) reports that two of the CSI shows are almost always in the top ten. Judges have also reported that many of the jurors are extremely inquisitive as it relates to DNA evidence and fingerprints. Many concede that such inquisitiveness is a direct result of CSI and similar television shows (Treleven, 2005).

In addition, the author asserts that jurors have also formed stereotypes about what a trial should look like and how the judges and lawyers should behave (Treleven, 2005). The article asserts that jurors are likely to be disappointed by the lack of drama in an actual trial and the seemingly mundane performances of judges and lawyers...whether this would translate into disappointment to the lack of high-tech evidence presented and whether that would translate into tougher sledding for the prosecution seems a rather tenuous set of assumptions (Treleven, 2005)."

Because jurors are often so enamored by what they have seen on television many judges now have to remind jurors to separate fact from fiction when deciding a case (Treleven, 2005).

Indeed, the justice system and law enforcement agencies have been forced to adjust to the impact of these shows on the minds of jurors. An article entitled "Getting a Grip on the CSI Effect" asserts that the CSI effect has placed both of the entities under pressure to distinguish between the fictional things scene in television shows and the reality of actual cases (Botluk & Mitchell 2005). In addition the authors assert that expert witnesses are under greater pressure to find new ways of developing testimony that is compelling to jurors (Botluk & Mitchell 2005). Many have asserted that such evidence should not only be entertaining for the jurors but must also convince them that the crime was thoroughly investigated (Botluk & Mitchell 2005).

The article in U.S. News explains that these television shows are most misleading in the fast manner in which they are able to gather forensic evidence such as DNA and get quick results. The article explains that in reality forensics is seldom as fast, or as certain, as TV tells us. Too often this science is unproven, the analysis unsound, and the experts unreliable...many of the nation's crime labs -- underfunded, undercertified and under attack-simply can't produce (Morrison and Roane, 2005)."

John Marquis who is the district attorney of a city in Oregon explains that he does not have access to same day toxicology reports or same day DNA testing that many jurors now expect (Prosecutors feel the CSI Effect). It has been likened to the Perry Mason Effect. For example, "in the '50's and '60's with Perry Mason, you expected the confession before the last commercial...with these CSI shows, people are conditioned to think there's always going to be evidence at a crime scene (Rosinski 2004)."

When jurors are selected for a trial many of them now expect to be shown concrete forensic evidence from the crime scene. However, in many cases such evidence is not existent or very slight. When jurors do not receive such evidence from the prosecution there is often an acquittal. Such was the case in a Baltimore murder case in which there were two eyewitnesses but no DNA evidence (Prosecutors feel the CSI Effect)

The authors point out that a great deal of the evidence presented on crime investigation shows is not the type of forensic evidence that is gathered in real life. For instance, in one episode of CSI the evidence included using a wound to recreate the shape of a knife (Morrison and Roane, 2005). Another show attempted to predict the time of death according to the rate at which a piece of metal rust. However, most forensic experts agree that this type of forensic evidence is not likely to occur in a real crime.

The authors assert that blood from the perpetrator is rarely found at a crime scene (Morrison and Roane, 2005). The most common types of evidence are tool marks and fingerprints (Morrison and Roane, 2005).

The authors also assert that crime labs have progressed very little over the years. For instance the article explains that many are still understaffed, and they often don't receive all of the relevant physical evidence from the crime scene, either because police investigators don't know what they're looking for or because figure -- possibly wrongly -- that the case is strong enough without it. A crime labs bread and butter is testing drugs found at crime scenes, doing toxicology screens, and comparing fingerprints. DNA matches are way down the list, mainly because they're time consuming and expensive (Morrison and Roane, 2005)."

In addition, some of the technology presented on such shows doesn't even exist. The technology that does exist usually takes a great deal of time to examine forensic data. This technology cannot produce results overnight as some of these crime shows suggest.

The creator of CSI Anthony Zuiker insists that the type of technology presented on the CSI series is accurate and scientifically proven. He argues "all of the science is accurate and we have real CSI's on staff that help us write the scripts and make sure everything is executed perfectly (Prosecutors feel the CSI Effect)."

Although the creator of CSI asserts that the technology and types of forensic evidence shown on the television program are not realistic, there are many who disagree. In fact some experts that have worked on the show and other similar shows have quit because they believe that the shows are detrimental to the judicial system and may influence potential jurors in a negative way (Botluk & Mitchell (2005). In addition, some experts believe that the shows can unknowingly be teaching criminals how to get away with crimes (Botluk & Mitchell (2005). For instance, a criminal may watch the show and learn how crime scene investigators find perpetrators.

This to can prove problematic because prosecutors will have a difficult time finding perpetrator and if they are found there may not be any evidence that links them to the scene of the crime. The lack of evidence will convince jurors suffering from the CSI effect that the defendant is innocent and they will be acquitted. There is a cyclical or ironic nature that can come about as a result of the CSI effect.

Indeed, because jurors have been so influenced by these programs, they often have a difficult time understanding why certain types of evidence have not been presented. As was previously mentioned the absence of such expected evidence could lead to acquittals. Although such occurrences have been rare thus far, there are regions of the country where the CSI Effect seems to be prevalent. According tot an article written in the Washington Post

It is not known how many cases have been affected by such crime shows in trail preparation, tactics or verdicts. But there is a growing body of anecdotal evidence, and in more than a dozen interviews, prosecutors and defense lawyers in the Washington region cited specific cases in which they believe the demand for forensic evidence influenced the outcome -- because jurors told them so after trial (Stockwell 2005)."

In the long run jurors may have a more difficult time distinguishing fact from fiction, which will inevitably change the way that police investigations and trials are handled.

Pressure placed on Labs and forensic experts from jurors suffering from the CSI Effect

Prosecutors are finding that the expectations of jurors are heightened to the point that the need for the prosecutor to supply such evidence has become overwhelming. This places a significant burden upon the labs and the forensic experts that prosecutors depend on to produce forensic evidence. The article explains that there is a serious problem associated with crime lab ethics, which has been heightened in recent years. The article asserts that many crime labs have been cited for sloppy procedures and producing erroneous evidence (Morrison and Roane, 2005). The fact that crime labs are not required to be accredited adds to the problem because there are not any standard procedures that govern the management of the labs. Under new laws all federally funded crime labs will have to be accredited by 2006 but currently 30% of the federally funded crime labs do not have any accredidation (Morrison and Roane, 2005).

The article also reports that many experts such as crime lab technicians, coroners, forensic anthropologists and police chemists have been fired for presenting erroneous evidence in recent years (Morrison and Roane, 2005). The article asserts that It's hard to find anyone in law enforcement who can't recite a story of quackery on the stand or in the lab. Forensic practitioners say the popularity of the field may make things even worse, noting that new forensics-degree programs are cropping up all over the place, some turning out questionable candidates...Because of the weight the analysis is now given, professional ethics and certification of labs has never been more important (Morrison and Roane, 2005)."

Another article explains that there is a trend underway in the United States to hold expert witnesses accountable in civil court for supplying erroneous information during a trial. Botluk & Mitchell (2005) assert that such witnesses were, at one time granted absolute immunity, some jurisdictions are now allowed for civil liability if the expert has been negligent (Botluk & Mitchell (2005). In some cases the article reports that experts have falsified lab results and planted evidence (Botluk & Mitchell (2005). These actions can be costly because they put into question the integrity of the entire forensic system and the previous cases that may have resulted in conviction (Botluk & Mitchell (2005).

Indeed many have conceded that the way to address issues related to ethics and evidence tampering is to increase funding for crime labs in addition to creating and making mandatory accreditation of the labs. Some experts have even asserted that crime labs are the most neglected area of public safety throughout the nation. Experts have also argued that crime labs should be accredited much in the same way that hospitals are accredited.

Morrison & Sloane (2005) also concede that even if a crime lab is certified there are still mistakes made. The authors explain that accredited crime labs are usually required to gauge their tactics through declarative tests (Morrison & Sloane 2005). However in most cases the lab workers are aware that they are being tested. In most cases the labs pass these tests, however some forensic experts argue that these planned tests do nothing to evaluate the everyday performance of the lab (Morrison & Sloane 2005). Not knowing the way that a crime lab operates in general can be detrimental to ensuring that the evidence gathered at a crime scene is correctly and thoroughly tested.

Moreover there are often discrepancies in the manner in which evidence taken from a crime scene is sampled. This often means that forensic evidence cannot always be believed (Morrison & Sloane 2005). For instance, although DNA testing is the most accurate type of forensic science, there are often differences in the interpretation of DNA evidence (Morrison & Sloane 2005).

In addition on the television shows there is a belief that the tactics being utilized are exact. However, the authors point out that many test are open for interpretation. For instance, everything from fingerprint identification to fiber analysis is now coming under fire. And rightfully so. The science is inexact, the experts are of no uniform opinion, and defense lawyers are increasingly skeptical...many of these techniques and theories have never been tested to ensure they are valid (Morrison and Roane, 2005)."

Indeed the pressure placed on prosecutors can be enormous especially when there is an enormous backlog of evidence at labs needing to be tested. According to an article on BBC News there are between 200,000 and 300,000 DNA samples in U.S. labs waiting to be tested (Rincon 2005).

The article also contends that families of victims are also influenced by the CSI effect. For instance, on the television shows toxicology reports are often available rapidly and when families discover that such reports can actually take months to get they are dissatisfied (Rincon 2005).

Defense attorneys also take advantage of the expectations that jurors have. For instance a defense attorney may ask why the prosecution did not provide certain types of evidence (Toobin: "CSI" makes jurors more demanding). In some cases such questions are founded but quite often the type of evidence in question was not found or the testing of such evidence is not available (Toobin: "CSI" makes jurors more demanding).

According to Stockwell (2005) some defense attorneys use the lack of forensic evidence to place doubt in the minds of jurors. The article asserts that such doubt can be place in jurors' minds "even when there are eyewitness accounts, confessions on other compelling evidence (Stockwell 2005)

Overall it seems that crime labs in particular have been greatly affected by the pressure to produce concrete evidence as a result of the expectations placed on prosecutors. These prosecutors encounter a great deal of pressure form victims' families and jurors to present evidence that will convict a criminal. This pressure is in turn placed on those responsible for producing or validating the evidence. Such pressures lead some to falsify the evidence or to plant evidence to get a conviction. Such actions threaten to jeopardize the entire legal system and can result in mistrials and sending innocent people to jail.

Although references to CSI by jurors may seem benign they can become malignant if the judicial system is adversely impacted by the fiction being presented as fact on such shows.

Positive impact of the CSI Effect

Although many believe that the CSI Effect has tainted potential jurors and placed unfair burdens on prosecutors, some believe that the CSI effect has had a positive impact on the judicial system. Many assert that this effect forces police officers to investigate crime scenes more thoroughly. This effect holds police officers accountable for the way that they investigate crimes. The officers know that if they do not bring strong forensic evidence into court the perpetrator might be acquitted.

In addition, a CNN article asserts that the CSI Effect has a positive impact on prosecutors and police departments because it forces them to spend more money (Toobin: "CSI" makes jurors more demanding). This money allows the departments to get better technology and hire qualified technicians who can produce accurate results (Toobin: "CSI" makes jurors more demanding).

It is evident that the CSI effect can have some positive effects of the way that law enforcement handles crime. Indeed with the recent onslaught of cases where people were imprisoned for crimes that they did not commit, crime for which DNA evidence later found tem innocent -- the CSI effect could be positive. The CSI effect forces jurors to really investigate the issue because in many of the aforementioned cases some defendants were intimidated into confessing the crime.

Such was the case of the central park jogger, which involved four juveniles that confessed to the crime of rape.

However, after the young men had already spent many years in prison it was found that the confessions were coerced, and that a single assailant already in jail had actually committed the rape and there was DNA evidence to support this. Had the CSI effect been present at the time that the young men were convicted perhaps they would have spent that time behind bars being punished for a crime that they did not commit. So then, the CSI Effect does have some redeeming qualities.

Coping with the CSI Effect

According to Botluk & Mitchell (2005) there are ways to address the issues related to the impact of the CSI Effect on Jurors. For instance, the National Clearinghouse for science, Technology ad the Law at Stetson College of Law was formed to address this very issue. The authors report that the clearinghouse provides resources that gather and track information related to technology and forensics (Botluk & Mitchell (2005). The clearinghouse is designed to decipher between useful information and information that is questionable (Botluk & Mitchell (2005). The purpose of this is to reintroduce jurors to the realities of the justice system -- which are separate from those depicted on television (Botluk & Mitchell (2005).

The clearinghouse is also designed to aid forensic experts as it relates to matters of ethics and preventing civil liability and jeopardizing cases (Botluk & Mitchell (2005). The authors report that the clearinghouse will have a database, which will include court cases news and pieces of legislation. When using this database "researchers can choose to view all types of resources in all its forensic-related topics, or restrict to those topics or resource types of specific interest. The database will also support keyword search across fields, and limited field-based searching (Botluk & Mitchell (2005)."

It is evident that the clearinghouse is just the initial step in attempting to help jurors decipher fact from fiction. There must be many other programs and tactics that will develop to cope with the CSI effect and its impact on jurors and the judicial system. These coping mechanisms should ensure that those that have committed a crime are not convicted and those that have committed a crime are sent to prison based on the actual evidence and not the expected evidence.

Conclusion

The purpose of this discussion was to explore the impact that the CSI effect has had upon jurors and the judicial system. The research was informative in providing information about the CSI effect and the manner in which it impact jurors, crime labs prosecutors and that judicial system in general. The research also focused on the positive impact that the CSI effect has on the legal system and law enforcement agencies.