The CSI effect on criminal justice and evidence perception

CSI Effect

The American justice system today is set up in such a way that no criminal can be convicted if reasonable doubt exists regarding the crime. This is particularly important when considering severe crimes such as murder or grand theft. A recent phenomenon that has created a stir in courtrooms, and especially among prosecutors, is the so-called "CSI Effect," which means that a public constantly bombarded by shows such as CSI and the like tend to harbor unrealistic expectations about evidence presented in criminal cases. Furthermore, these same viewers tend to acquit criminals that should be charged for their crimes. In this regard, Donald Shelton's article, "The CSI Effect: Does it really exist?" highlights several important elements, the most important of which is that there have not been any academic studies to investigate the severity of this concern. Furthermore, the article suggests that, while the CSI effect itself is unlikely to have an effect on jurors' decision processes, there is a significant effect that results from technological advances; the "tech effect." The conclusion is that the criminal justice system needs to address juror expectations, which have become far more sophisticated than they were in the past.

The most important element addressed by Shelton's article is that there has been very little investigation on the CSI effect in courtrooms by means of academic study. This in itself casts doubt upon the existence of such an effect, or if it does exist, whether it affects the juror's actual decision in comparison to his or her non-CSI watching counterpart. While the article suggests that there is no significant difference between CSI watchers and their counterparts in terms of guilty verdicts, one must keep in mind a central weakness of the study. It is a single study of its kind, and possibly even the first of its kind. It includes 1,000 jurors, which is a significant number, but which is also a very small part of the thousands of jurors called to duty across the country. Hence, it cannot by any stretch be called representative of the whole. Instead, more studies of the kind are required to establish the actual occurrence of the CSI effect and whether this in fact influences jurors' decisions when submitting a guilty or not guilty verdict.

What the article also does not address is the effect of preconceived and possibly misguided assumptions about crime investigation. Certain commonly held myths may be fallacies that could influence decisions that jurors make. Many of these myths can be inspired by fiction and television, such as the CSI series. While the article seems to deny the influence of television, it does not directly address other commonly held beliefs about certain types of crimes and crime scenes.

What the article does give particular attention to, is the effect of technological development on the perception of jurors regarding crime scenes, the collection of evidence, and the accuracy of such evidence. This is one of the main strengths of the article. Juror expectations are that criminal justice departments will have the top range of investigating and analysis equipment, like the see not only on television, but also in news and Internet reports. Shelton suggests several ways in which this might be addressed, including in fact equipping all police and justice departments with the newest equipment as it becomes available, educating the public regarding criminal investigations, or both.