Deconstructing The CSI Effect: Forensic Science And The Media

1731 Words7 Pages
Technology has gained much importance in the aspects of everyday life. From how people choose to entertain themselves, or even on a larger scale like the advancement in technological devices used to save lives. So there is no mystery that technology has not impacted and placed its role in the legal system of the United States in the field of Forensic Science. More so that technology hasn 't replaced all things in the legal system, such as having a machine/robot in who speaks with the defendant or withholds all documents. If anything Forensic Science can be seen as the backbone of the legal system because forensic science plays a major role in the outcome of cases. It even helps overturn previous convictions. So yes you would believe that through…show more content…
Each show uses the same main aspects used by Forensic Scientists in assisting law enforcement, that Emily Fisher “Deconstructing the CSI Effect: Forensic Science & the Media.” Fisher also uses an example of NCIS: One Shot One Kill episode, to explain that the procedures in finding the bullets were incorrect. The episode is based on a Navy Recruiting officer being shot in his recruitment office by a sniper. In reality, under circumstances of easily finding a bullets in walls wouldn 't be accessible. (Explain why & cite source)Also Abby’s idea of using computer programming for reinventing the crime scene, to better understand that the shooter was a sniper, wouldn 't be accessible either.(explain why & cite source) Fisher also explains that DNA cannot fall under the assumption of “DNA doesn 't lie.” The reason is because of The Innocence Project, which assist in wrongful convictions of DNA testing. Television explains that any technology identification is 100% correct, no errors can be made. She also explains that these the machines are what do most of the work. Meaning, on TV, Abby gives the machine the specimen to test, is given the results, and the states to the team how they can find the suspect. Whereas in reality it 's the complete opposite, the scientist is in charge, they must dictate what type of test for the equipment to conduct. The scientist must interpret and may also have to perceive the conclusion. According to Emily Fisher Evan Durnal notes, “Although it…show more content…
Television shows such as CSI gives them the belief that any type of evidence is prominent to coming to a conclusion. Jurors are accustomed to the idea that evidence does not lie, since that is what’s showed on television. From watching television shows and court cases movies gives jurors conception that judges, lawyer, and evidence are what bring to concluding their verdict. Jurors expect the evidence to be conclusive since the technology is so advanced. Law & Order, not pertaining to any specific case usually have witnesses, and at times jurors expect the eyewitness to have solid facts as to applying it to the verdict. Sometimes it’s difficult as well to have jurors who know about the case through social media so if they’ve seen similar cases on television or in reality they will quickly use that case to evaluate their verdict. At the same time this causes bias preconception throughout jurors mind during the case. According to two different sources, one believes that forensic technology is not the case of why jurors believe in forensic evidence, and the other believes is it true that jurors believe in forensic technology. According to Judge Donald Shelton, he says that these CSI Effect articles are primarily based off of lawyers opinions, they are not facts. The reason jurors expect carts aspects in courtrooms is because of the technology they carry in their
Open Document