Response to Reketer Barber
The popularity of shows like CSI has led to widespread misperceptions about the quality and nature of forensic science. As you point out, the CSI effect could lead to wrongful acquittals, but it is equally possible that jurors might wrongfully convict based on perceptions of the strength of forensic evidence admitted into the trial. As Gaensslen & Larsen (2019) “jurors bring expectations to the jury room that are based on watching television,” (1.1). One of those expectations is related to the amount of time it takes to process forensic evidence. On television, the scripted shows make it seem like forensic evidence is processed almost instantaneously, and that the results offer cut and dry facts, when in reality the time it takes to process the data is much longer and the results less conclusive.
Response to Barbara Larios
It is interesting to focus on both the sentencing and the charges, as you do in this post. While Shelton (2008) points out, the CSI effect might not be as strong as has been suspected, this type of survey overlooks the fact that some individual jurors may be susceptible to the CSI effect. It is not just the inability to distinguish between reality and fiction,...
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now