What is the “CSI effect?”
The “CSI effect” is an unrealistic way of thinking about forensic science, evidence, and investigation techniques thanks to the way crime scenes are portrayed in the media.
How did Evan Durnal prove that this effect is real?
Evan Durnal collected evidence from many studies to show how watching television drama shows about forensic science changes the way people see it. Durnal studied one case where the jurors immediately brought up the bloody jacket that was not tested for DNA. They did not know it wasn’t needed because the defendant was there at the crime scene.
Discuss the “most obvious symptom of the CSI effect.”
The most obvious symptom of the CSI effect is where people are believing they have enough knowledge
Even when Michael’s new defense team, through the innocence project, found a crime that was eerily similar to the method of murder and subsequent events to the one that Michael was convicted of, the new prosecutor in Williamson County fought hard to keep DNA testing from taking place, even stating that they objected to the testing now because the defense hadn’t requested it before (Morton, 2014). There was further evidence of ineffectiveness in that the coroner who’d changed his estimated time of death between the autopsy and trial, had come under scrutiny for his findings in this case, as well as several others, with claims of gross errors “including one case where he came to the conclusion that a man who’d been stabbed in the back had committed suicide” (Morton, 2014). This was only one of the many injustices that were committed against Michael Morton throughout his trial. In August of 2006, the defense was finally granted permission to perform DNA testing on the items that had been taken from his wife’s body (Morton, 2014). Although this testing did not reveal any information about the guilty party, it did at least give Michael the knowledge that Chris was not sexually violated before or after her death (Morton,
Primarily, apart from the previously discussed issues regarding the evidence and technology used, the issues consisted of the fact that there was no body ever found, making it difficult to examine the exact circumstances of the crime and whether the crime occurred entirely, relying on a few bloodstains and unclear CCTV footage (as seen in Figure 3). In relation to this issue, another problem was the previously aforementioned heavy reliance on the eyewitness testimony of Joanne Lees. While crucial to the investigation, eyewitness testimonies may be subject to inconsistencies, memory lapses and potential bias, all of which were concerns during the trial. Finally, the high-profile nature of the case garnered widespread media attention. The extensive media coverage had the potential to influence public opinions which in turn may have impacted the trial
Further, the Report found there was indication of a failure to implement procedures to ensure evidence testing was without bias, with no attempt made to preserve evidence for additional testing should the need arise. Lastly, the Report discovered the evidence of the park ranger and bush trackers, alongside the reinvestigated forensic science, corroborated the theory a dingo had taken the baby. As this essay has examined, much of the forensic science was unsubstantiated and erroneously tested and the prosecution case relied consistently on expert witness testimony that failed to show a distinct lack of impartiality and depended on unproven laboratory procedures, further failing to rely on more accurate and objective evidence that led to the eventual exoneration of
Texas Servant Girl Murders - (HDSI) In a Public Service Broadcasting History Detectives documentary, a team of forensic scientists and detectives decided to attempt to solve a case more than 130 years old. The “Texas Servant Girl Murders” are a series of murders that took place in Austin, Texas in 1885. These murders have remained a mystery until modern day forensic scientists look back and may have been able to solve this crime easily today.
The possible biases in jury decision-making will be discussed, including those related to having a celebrity on trial. In addition, this paper will examine the taboo nature of sexual assault cases, the problems that often arise in such cases, and the psychological toll on the victim. One issue with this case is the prosecution’s lack forensic evidence. In a “he said, she said” case that lacks the evidence that jurors expect in order to make their decision, it comes down to whether they believe the defendant or the prosecution. When DNA is not available, other types of physical evidence are examined (LaPorte, G., Nguyen, M., Schwarting, D., Scott, F., Waltke, H., Weiss, D., 2017).
The CSI effect is said to have come about because of CSI and similar shows like NCIS and Criminal Minds. The effect of these shows are said to have the public put too much emphasis on forensic evidence and they want more forensic evidence. There are several question to be asked to the jury, one, was the forensics seen as an absolute? Two, if the forensic science was not there would you still have convicted Santae Tribble? Three, was there anyone person who did not want to agree?
Anthony Robinson strove all his life to escape the caste system of the ghetto he grew up in. He graduated from a prestigious college and joined the military, only to be falsely identified in a rape case and convicted. He argued many times that he was innocent and was devastated that he ended up in jail, adding to the reputation of those who grow up in the ghetto usually end up in prisons. He had to serve thirteen years in jail before he was paroled able to prove his innocence; he accomplished this with a DNA sample after saving his own money to fund a DNA examination to prove he did not commit the crime and clear his record(1,2). Sadly, Robinson is not the only one who's life was ruined because he was falsely convicted and given no fair trial.
As with any criminal case, there are always a number of issues pertaining the stages of the crime and also the media and the general public’s opinion of the case. Many of the issues and explicit actions of certain individuals that had happened during the Corryn Rayney case had affected the interpretation of the case in someway for both government workers and the general public. By analysing the issues of the case, it allows a much more detailed view on the case and how most of the issues are linked in one way or another. One of the issues regarding this case was where a police officer had been found attempting to pressure forensic pathologists to alter their case reports to align with their best interests.
However, other people may be believe that the American Criminal Justice System is trustworthy and fair to all individuals. Thus, they believe innocents should have nothing to fear based on the assumption that the Criminal Justice System is never mistaken. Given the advanced technology used in courtrooms today, people think that this can always be depended on for accurate results. For instance, in modern courtrooms, prosecutors and attorneys use “undeniable scientific evidence” such as DNA testing and fingerprint evidence (Volokh). Therefore, some people think that it is virtually impossible for an innocent person to be convicted for a crime with this irrefutable technology.
The trial against Robert Blake was accused of murdering his wife is also an example of the C.S.I. effect. The prosecution had very strong evidence that connected Robert Blake to the murder of his wife. However, the jury wanted “hard” evidence. Since there was no trace of gun-shot residue or blood on Blake’s clothing, the jury acquitted him of all charges.
Popular Culture Portrayal of the Scientific Discipline In the Fox series, Bones, Dr. Temperance Brennan is one of the lead female actors in the crime-solving drama that represents the scientific discipline, specifically Forensic Anthropology. Taking place in very modern times, Dr. Brennan and her laboratory use state of the art technology and their brilliant minds to solve heinous crimes that an ordinary team could not solve. Dr. Brennan’s unusual characteristics are used to bring to the light the specific quirks of those involved in the scientific discipline.
Science has come a long way over the years. It has helped countless every day struggles and cure diseases most commonly found. What you don’t hear about however is the advancement of forensic science. Forensic science has helped solve countless cases of murder, rape, and sexual assault. In the case of John Joubert, it helped solve the murders of three young boys with one small piece of evidence that linked him directly to the crime.
They also explained how investigators and the detectives investigated the Peters car in quadrants where they take a wet swab and then dry swab to find any prints on or int the car. In addition they fumigated the car and wear orange goggles that help them find more prints and evidence that the human eye can't see. All of these scientific investigative evidence procedures can seem to be detrimental to Herring. However, we learned in class that the CSI effect has no meaningful impact between forensic science show viewers and non-viewers when it came to convict or acquit a defendant. Research suggests that the CSI Effect benefits the prosecution is a myth.
Basic scientists are individuals who prefer to study occurrences in order to gather a better understanding to satisfy their curiosity. This process doesn’t resolve in answering the question but rather gaining the knowledge (Greene & Heilbrun, 2014). The basic scientists’ role in law enforcement is to conduct “research on the relationship between social attitudes and behavior can clarify why people obey or disobey the law” (Greene & Heilbrun, 2014). This predation is transferred to the courtroom through testimony and
The shows that are extremely detailed with the viewing of the crime scene, tend to sometimes render too much information. For example, how DNA is collected, showing how the process is done, and how long it takes. For the typical criminal